Re: Rethinking "Supported language"

["Yair Hershkovitz" <yairhr gmail com>]

Regarding the Development tools: Using my suggestion they would count
for 6.5% where as they count for 7.7% today.

This is not best. Ideally we should also give different weight for
different topics. For example: 10% developers platform, 80% desktop,
3% administration tools and 7% developers tools. Ofcourse this is an
arbitrary partition.

This way a team can choose not to translate a certain section (due to
priorities), for example the development tools, but it should keep in
mind that it won't be able more than xx% (for example 7%) of the gnome
desktop.

Yair.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Yair Hershkovitz <yairhr gmail com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  Here goes my ideas and proposition on this subject.
>
>  Generally I agree with the idea of the 50%/80% system. But i also
>  think that the current way of counting is not good enough. Not in the
>  sense of why do we count a certain module, but how to count it.
>
>  The motivation for my proposal are two modules: evolution and
>  libgweather-locations. libgweather-locations has a really really minor
>  influence on the experience of a user using a localized desktop, yet
>  it counts for 10% of the gnome desktop translation - this is absurd.
>  Evolution in contract to the previous is an important part of the
>  desktop experience (for all "normal"/developers/administrators/...
>  users). Evolution counts for 12% of the translations. But, is
>  Evolution more important then gnome-panel (1.5%), metacity+libwnck
>  (3%), nautilus (3%) or epiphany (2%) ?
>
>  This leads me to believe that instead of counting total strings we
>  should use weighted counting. The simplest weight could be uniformly
>  on all modules, say 'n' is the number of modules then for each module
>  we count 1/n * percent_of_module. This is fair enough so nobody
>  complains and yet it can be enhanced to give higher weight to more
>  important modules (where such a definition can be agreed upon).
>
>  Using the below formula: - Hebrew changes from 72% to 79%
>                                         - Arabic changes from 98% to 96.8%
>                                         - Dutch changes from 90% to 92%
>                                         - French keeps on 99%
>                                         - Catalan keeps on 97%
>                                         - Irish from 29% to 31%
>                                         - Japanese keeps on 95%
>                                         - Swedish keeps on 99%
>                                         - Russion changes from 93% to 90%
>                                         - Greek changes from 84% to 83%
>                                         - Norwegian changes from 64% to 65%
>                                         - Croatian changes from 45% to 37%
>                                         - Welsh changes from 72% to 63%
>                                         - Latvian changes from 78% to 73%
>                                         - Indonasian changes from 70% to 65%
>                                         - Albanian changes from 73% to 72%
>                                         - Georgian changes from 52% to 57%
>
>  And so on...
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Duarte Loreto <happyguy_pt hotmail com> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hello
>  >
>  > I'm not very verbose on the list but I believe I should step in this talk.
>  >
>  > > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:57:45 +0100
>  > > From: "Kenneth Nielsen"
>  > > Subject: Re: Rethinking "Supported language"
>  > > To: gnome-i18n gnome org
>  > > Message-ID:
>  > >
>  > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>  >
>  > >
>  > >> Frankly, I hadn't been convinced by any of the proposals until now. The
>  > >> 80%/50% rules are not perfect, but unless we have some serious method to
>  > >> be more accurate, like Danilo proposed in his D-L HACKING file, I don't
>  > >> see any reason to change it now.
>  > >
>  > >  +1
>  >
>  > +1 for me. And I'll reason it in three different ways:
>  > 1st - The "Typical users don't use localized Dev Tools" argument
>  > 2nd - Size of teams and 80% difficulty
>  > 3rd - GNOME Global Team motivation and perceived product quality
>  >
>  > Disclaimer: Portuguese is at 100%
>  >
>  > * The "Typical users don't use localized Dev Tools" argument
>  > This may be true in some north european countries that have language roots similar to those of the english language. But it is not true for south european languages, like Portuguese, that are latin based, for instance. Nor for other parts of the globe where Linux is having great adoption.
>  >
>  > Even if in the begining of IT developers would only have english tools, with the i18n and L10n evolution, current university students are becoming more and more used to have books and tools on their native language. Then some expressions are adapted to native words, some rare expressions are kept as the original. But the tools are native.
>  >
>  > One last point is concerned with what is the main target for GNOME and Linux on the desktop on each country. Using Portugal as an example, until recently Linux on the desktop was used mainly by young people (
>  > _________________________________________________________________
>  > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
>  > http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > gnome-i18n mailing list
>  > gnome-i18n gnome org
>  > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>  >
>