Re: Rosetta-Feedback - UDS Prague
Hi Kenneth, On Saturday at 16:04, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: Furthermore it is also very time consuming to review and approve suggestions. I don't see a real speedup compared to writing them on my own. Especially since there is no way to provide feedback to the translators in Rosetta. If there is no contact outside of Rosetta I have to correct the same errors again and again. I believe the lack of documentation is to blame here. Reviewing suggestions would not speed you up short-term, but once you have reviewed enough of someone's translations and start considering him a good translator, you'd make him a reviewer as well, and then it would be two of you translating, and two of you reviewing. I disagree. I believe it is the process currently involved that is the principal source of the time used reviewing, reviewing _can_ be done in a manner that takes less time per string than you would use translating it your self, so getting more people to review would simply mean more people wasting time. I think you are missing one important point. A reviewer can also submit translations without waiting for them to be reviewed. I.e. by reviewing someone's translations, you are aiming for a new 'trusted' translator as well. So, now it'll be two guys who can translate directly, and if that doesn't speed you up long-term, I don't know what will. As Sebastian pointed out though, we need to improve the process, and improve the documentation. Mark also had a nice idea of having a review-template (containing common terms, constructions, and problematic cases). Reviewers would point people at it, prospective translators would provide their translations, and reviewers could easily evaluate their translation abilities. If only somebody would spend time preparing such a POT file :) Cheers, Danilo -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
Re: Rosetta-Feedback - UDS Prague
2008/6/18 Danilo Šegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Kenneth, On Saturday at 16:04, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: Furthermore it is also very time consuming to review and approve suggestions. I don't see a real speedup compared to writing them on my own. Especially since there is no way to provide feedback to the translators in Rosetta. If there is no contact outside of Rosetta I have to correct the same errors again and again. I believe the lack of documentation is to blame here. Reviewing suggestions would not speed you up short-term, but once you have reviewed enough of someone's translations and start considering him a good translator, you'd make him a reviewer as well, and then it would be two of you translating, and two of you reviewing. I disagree. I believe it is the process currently involved that is the principal source of the time used reviewing, reviewing _can_ be done in a manner that takes less time per string than you would use translating it your self, so getting more people to review would simply mean more people wasting time. I think you are missing one important point. A reviewer can also submit translations without waiting for them to be reviewed. No I.e. by reviewing someone's translations, you are aiming for a new 'trusted' translator as well. Not if we can't provide feedback and make them make the corrections themselves. So, now it'll be two guys who can translate directly, and if that doesn't speed you up long-term, I don't know what will. I think you are missing an important point here. There are _many_ upstream translators/translation teams that consider reviewing translations, even those done by seasoned translators, as a integral part of the translation process, that is absolutely necessary to reach a high quality output. E.g. _all_ translations submitted to the GNOME SVN for the Danish language has been reviewed, indenpendently of the translator. We don't want to comprimise our standards for quality in Ubuntu, hence what we need is a way to quickly review, _not_ correct, a translation, because if we correct them ourselves then translator will not learn anything and the reviewers will have to keep correcting the same things. What we do when we review is to read through the translations, commenting only on the one that needs commenting, and only in as much detail as is required for the individual string. This can sometimes only be a single word or sentence Typo, Reformulate to avoid english sentence structure, misgid has plural or sometimes it can be a long explanation of some preferred terminology or policy. This all means that I can review and provide feedback for translations, as fast as I can read, write and delete text in a text editor and send an email, and _that_ is what I am looking for. My suggested point-diff approach will allow for that, in parallel with anything else you guys might think up as the main approach in the web-interface. Regards Kenneth Nielsen -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
Re: Rosetta-Feedback - UDS Prague
Hi Kenneth, On Saturday at 15:47, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: It sounds like you guys had a very good discussion and I can whole-heartedly sign off on all of your points. Especially I think that you with 1, 2 and 3 have essentially captured the essence of my last nerveous breakdown ;) There is one point that I would like to elaborate on and that has to do with reviewing and QA. I think that right now there are a lot of suggestions for how to improve the LP UI to make this better and easier and that's fine, but I think you have to consider making a policy change considering LP that allows people to take part of this job outside of LP as an option. The problem is that the people that currently work as admins and reviewers are old guys who has previously worked with upstream projects, and for them/us the LP way looks like a lot of unnecessary mouse clicks and wasted time. Upstream, say in GNOME, you might have a process like this: * A translator sends a diff-file that represents his latest translations contributions to a list for review * The reviewer opens the diff in his favorite text editor, say emacs, comment on the strings that need commenting and delete the rest, send that back to the transator * If the translator agress with the comments he makes the changes and sends the finished file for integration --- * which is accomplished by a couple of svn commands by the admin So all in all, a couple of emails and some pure text editing and it's done. You make it sound like it's a few minutes of work, when it's anything but. :) The only capability we lack at the moment is making comments for rejected/modified suggestions. All the other steps are possible, and actually easier with Launchpad. Considering this, any review process that require one mouse click per string, and possible waiting for a page to load for every 10 strings you want to review and has no built-in/easy posibility for feedback, is just to much trouble . I agree 10-strings-per-page is too low for serious review work. However, knowing that you are not a newbie, I'd be surprised if you haven't found a way to enlarge that number :) However, I find that one click is hardly a limitation. (Btw, I'd leave the decision to usability guys) Therefore I think it would be very nice to have a process in LP that mimics parts of this process simply because it is so easy, and I do have en idea on how to accomplish this. I involves two different expansions/modifications to LP and therefore do include some work on the part of the developers, but I think it would be worth it. I have written the idea out below, I was planning to put these in development specifications but I have been crazy busy the last 10 months with my masters thesis work (and will be so for the next few months also). Suggestion 1 is only a tool needed for suggestions 2. Thanks for taking the time to describe this here. 1) Making it possible to sign of on a translation suggestion Description: This would be an option to say that you think that an already existing suggestion is good, and that you would have made the same suggestion if it wasn't already there. That's what you do by approving a suggestion. Implementation considerations: UI-wise this would require a little button next to the suggestions and a link in the string that contains the source of the suggestions, where you could see the people that have signed of on the suggestion. I think this represents very little of UI-cluttering that Danilo mentions that he would like to avoid. So, you want to have several people 'signing off' on a suggestion? What I wonder is will that be used at all, and if it will, will it be used on more than 1% of strings. My suspicion is that no, it will not be used on more than 1% of strings, meaning that 99% of messages will have UI more cluttered (our UI is already too complex imho). This is basically 'voting' per message, and I think that's simply too much. 2) Making it possible to store a set of suggestions and approve/implement such a list with one action Description: After going through a translations and making as many suggestions or signing of on others ^^ it should be possible to save a list of all the suggestions _you_ made or signed off on as some sort of an object (lets call it a point-diff) and give it a name. It should then be possible to see a list of such point-diffs, to export them as a old style diff and to approve/(implement the changes the describe) them with just one action as an admin and possible to proofread them and provide text feedback on a point-diff basis directly in LP. This sounds like a cool idea, but also sounds pretty hard with our current DB model (i.e. this is a big architectural change, basically, svn vs. cvs style: in SVN one revision holds all changes from a single commit, in CVS each file has their own revision numbers and it's hard to find what was committed together). As far as 'old style' diffs are
Re: Rosetta-Feedback - UDS Prague
Hi Kenneth, Today at 12:56, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: I think you are missing one important point. A reviewer can also submit translations without waiting for them to be reviewed. No Sorry, but yes :) Whether that's desired is a different topic. I.e. by reviewing someone's translations, you are aiming for a new 'trusted' translator as well. Not if we can't provide feedback and make them make the corrections themselves. I already acknowledged that we are missing commenting feature and that it's important for reviewer's work. I also mentioned how external communication is still essential for running a translation team in LP (due to lack of such commenting feature). So, now it'll be two guys who can translate directly, and if that doesn't speed you up long-term, I don't know what will. I think you are missing an important point here. There are _many_ upstream translators/translation teams that consider reviewing translations, even those done by seasoned translators, as a integral part of the translation Actually, I am quite aware of that. And I am doing some improvements to enable reviewers to submit only suggestions (which is what they can't do right now). process, that is absolutely necessary to reach a high quality output. E.g. _all_ translations submitted to the GNOME SVN for the Danish language has been reviewed, indenpendently of the translator. We don't want to comprimise our standards for quality in Ubuntu, hence what we need is a way to quickly review, _not_ correct, a translation, because if we correct them ourselves then translator will not learn anything and the reviewers will have to keep correcting the same things. You do make a strong case here. I am thinking out loud, but if we modify the translator evaluation page to group submissions by dates, I think we'd have a good enough approximation to your 'point diff' approach. The mechanism to comment on such sets of suggestions would be very useful, indeed, but I think intially just having them per single page which you could copy and paste into email should be a big help. What we do when we review is to read through the translations, commenting only on the one that needs commenting, and only in as much detail as is required for the individual string. This can sometimes only be a single word or sentence Typo, Reformulate to avoid english sentence structure, misgid has plural or sometimes it can be a long explanation of some preferred terminology or policy. This all means that I can review and provide feedback for translations, as fast as I can read, write and delete text in a text editor and send an email, and _that_ is what I am looking for. My suggested point-diff approach will allow for that, in parallel with anything else you guys might think up as the main approach in the web-interface. Actually, I am sorry to say that I haven't heard a single comment about the existing evaluation view. The ideas from this thread can make it much more useful, and I'd be happy to spend some more time thinking about this, and later working on it. However, don't put up your hopes too high: it will take a while until I find time to work on this, especially now that it's just Jeroen and me working on LP Translations. If anyone feels like working on Launchpad Translations, check out http://webapps.ubuntu.com/employment/canonical_LTSE/ :) Cheers, Danilo -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
