On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Cheng-Chia Tseng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Fòram na Gàidhlig <[email protected]> 於 2015年4月24日 星期五寫道： > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> > The benefit with opening translations in advance here would be that >> > they would be done by Ubuntu Translators and would be consistent >> > with each team's guidelines, which might not be the case for a >> > translations agency. However, in any case for the projects >> > eventually open-sourced, translators would be able to fix strings >> > after release if required, fixes which would be then probably be >> > shipped in an OTA update. My personal suggestion here would be to >> > enable Ubuntu Translators to modify or complete the translations >> > once the code is available. I know it's not a perfect solution, but >> > I think it's the easiest in term of managing the logistics and >> > working with manufacturers. >> >> How will selecting translation agencies work? >> >> I am doing commercial translation for a big software company and they >> ended up using 5-6 agencies, which was a logistical nightmare. Since >> we're a minority language and nobody else is qualified to do the job, >> we could put our foot down, go through 1 agency only and thus >> coordinate the work load. >> >> Of course, I don't know if Canonical has any power over which agencies >> are selected. >> >> It should also be possible for volunteers to give Canonical a shout so >> they can apply to register with the translation agency/agencies if >> they want to. Why should others earn the money rather than those >> people who have dedicated tons of their free time over the years. It >> would also serve translation consistency. > > > Totally agree with you. It would be better that Canonical could have > existing translators who need jobs hired first. They know the workflow well > and are familiar with the existing glossary translations. > I believe I addressed this point on my previous reply on the thread. If you think it's not the case, please feel free to reply. > The other question I am concerned with is the coordination between > translation agencies and volunteer contributors. > > Mailing list perhaps? > The challenge here, as I mentioned on the original e-mail, is that some of these projects (e.g. the bq scopes) were not public before release, and in most cases I also want to stress the fact again, that these projects are more the exception than the rule. As you can see by picking up a phone or installing Ubuntu for phones in an emulator, the huge majority of the code is open source and openly translatable. > > > For example, there are only 2 main translators for traditional Chinese. It > could be said that we don't have much chance to have the language 100% > translated. Translation agencies must be involved in this case. > > However, I have seen many translations of games available in Android or > iOS store are in poor quality that we are always laughing at the > translations. It is believed the work was done by some cheap translation > agencies. > I can assure you this hasn't been the case for the outsourced OEM projects so far. > > > We, the translators, would like to ensure the quality of translations so > they should follow the guidelines we set and keep the translation in > consistency. > Indeed, I think that is an important point you are making. I think it's more than reasonable to ask agencies to consider the translation guidelines, and could be done. The more it's important for translation teams to have a curated set of guidelines available and up-to-date. Cheers, David.
-- ubuntu-translators mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
