On 06/30/2010 06:29 PM, Nathan Thomas wrote: > On 26/06/10 00:38, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > >> On 06/25/2010 10:31 PM, Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote: >> >>> Personally, I lean more towards the first option. As Shaun, from GNOME, >>> said last night, "...I don't think fully translated docs are worthwhile >>> if they're wrong". >>> >> This is only true for some values of "wrong" and some values of >> "worthwhile". >> >> A fully-translated guide that accurately documents 90% of the procedures >> that 90% of users are ever going to perform is indeed "worthwhile" to >> most of those users most of the time. >> >> And of course, for the same values of "wrong" and "worthwhile" you can >> just as easily and truthfully say "...I don't think docs that are not >> wrong anywhere are worthwhile if they're not fully translated into a >> language that I can read".[0] >> >> [0] and don't underestimate the importance of "fully". Consider a >> procedure described in documentation that's 100% correct but where step >> 4 is in a language that you can't read. >> >> >> > But Rudi, is the situation described in your footnote any worse than > having a procedure that is 100% readable but where step 4 is incorrect? > It is precisely *as bad*. Re-read the body sentence to which the footnote applies -- I'm describing documentation that is not "incorrect" in any way at all. More broadly, I'm suggesting that treating generalities like "wrong" and "worthwhile" (and "incorrect") as binary states (wrong/not wrong, worthwhile/not worthwhile) is not very helpful. If anything, translated/not translated is much closer to a binary state, but this isn't really true either, since fluency in a language is not a binary state. > I would like to hear the thoughts of the localisation teams on this > issue. How do they feel about their current workload? Would point > releases be feasible for them? > There are a few issues here. First, recall that no localisation team completely translates the entire documentation suite on the once-per-Fedora-release cycle that we're on *now*, let alone any point release. Second, the fact that we make a point release of a book available for translation doesn't mean that anyone should feel compelled to translate it. If a particular language team translated version 13 of a book, but doesn't translate version 13.1, we would continue to make the fully-translated version 13 available on d.fp.o unless that team tells us that they'd rather have 13.1 up there, untranslated strings and all. Third, I think that the second question is perhaps a little misleading; it's not a really question of whether L10N teams have the bandwidth for "point releases" per se, as whether L10N teams have the bandwidth (and motivation) for translating docs corrections and enhancements mid-cycle at all. Whether these changes are all rolled up together or presented piecemeal right across the documentation suite in the form of randomly broken strings is a little beside the point. > I would also like to know roughly how many bugs we would likely to be > fixing mid-cycle - do we have any statistics for the numbers of errors > found in published guides for each cycle, so we can estimate what the > workload is likely to be? > You can get a rough answer to this with a Bugzilla search on any particular guide or with the a general query across the entire "Fedora Documentation" product. Cheers Rudi -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
