W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-auth-trans-nl@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Status of Authorized Translation of WCAG2 to Dutch

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:45:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4C529F57.1050408@w3.org>
To: Eric Velleman <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, Fons@w3.org
CC: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, public-auth-trans-nl@w3.org
Hi Eric, Fons,

Thank you very much for your continued effort on this.

Please notify me before publicly announcing the new draft for review. It 
would be good to coordinate this with a WAI Interest Group message like 
we did previously:
  - 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/2009OctDec/0079.html>

This should not hold up your work but add to the visibility so that we 
can confidently finalize the effort.

Best,
   Shadi


On 30.07.2010 11:22, Velleman, Eric wrote:
> Hello Fons,
>
> Thanks for taking this up Fons. Fully agree with you. Please make the changes. I think Iacobien also found a possible error in the translation a few days ago. Will forward the mail to you also.
> Can you announce the review on the W3C NL website? We can probably use almost the same message as we used earlier to announce the review.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>
> =========================
> Eric Velleman
> Stichting Accessibility
> Universiteit Twente
>
> Oudenoord 325,
> 3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands);
> Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270
> www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu / www.game-accessibility.com
>
> Lees onze disclaimer: www.accessibility.nl/algemeen/disclaimer
> Accessibility is Member van het W3C
> =========================
>
> ________________________________
>
> Van: Fons Kuijk [mailto:Fons@w3.org]
> Verzonden: vr 30-7-2010 10:59
> Aan: Christophe Strobbe
> CC: public-auth-trans-nl@w3.org; Shadi Abou-Zahra; Velleman, Eric
> Onderwerp: Re: Status of Authorized Translation of WCAG2 to Dutch
>
>
>
> Dear Christophe,
>
> On a): in the definition above the note it reads "waaronder één naar
> verzadigd rood"
> This formulation should indeed have been used in the note as well.
> I suggest we change it accordingly.
>
> On b): In the 'opmerking' below the definition it reads "... zonder dat
> de uitdrukking haar ...".
> This formulation should indeed have been used in the definition as well.
> I suggest we change it accordingly.
>
> On c'1'): "Specifieke lettertypen" is indeed the correct translation of
> "particular fonts".
> I suggest we change it accordingly.
>
> On c'2') : I agree your formulation is closer to the original and makes
> more sense.
> I suggest we change it accordingly.
>
> On d): The notion "advancing focus" is better represented by "de
> volgorde gedefinieerd
> voor het voortbewegen van de focus" than by "... voor het verplaatsen
> van de focus"
> since "verplaatsen" could be in backward order as well.
> I suggest we change it using your first formulation.
>
> On e): I suggest "zouden beschouwd worden als verschillende
> verzamelingen webpagina's" should be
> reformulated as "worden beschouwd als verschillende verzamelingen
> webpagina's"
>
> On f): I don't fully support your suggestion to use "object" i.s.o.
> "hulpbron". Object is not specific enough.
> Alternatives are "bron" or "bestand"
> I suggest we use "bestand".
>
> On g): Since the original formulation reads "... in ways ...", which is
> plural, I suggest we use the following translation:
> "Technologie-eigenschappen kunnen benut worden op manieren die niet door
> toegankelijkheid ondersteund worden (niet werken met hulptechnologieën,
> etc.), zolang er niet op gesteund wordt om aan een succescriterium te
> conformeren (dat wil zeggen ....)"
>
> If we implement these changes (Eric, do you agree we should do so?) we
> should announce a new review period as well.
> I can implement the changes today, so that we can have a review period
> for the month of August.
> How do you think about that?
>
> Regards, Fons
>
>
> Christophe Strobbe schreef:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't like being the guy who spoils the party, especially after all
>> the hard work that has been done on the translation. But since I put a
>> lot of time and effort into contributions to WCAG 2 itself, I find the
>> correct representation of its content very important.
>>
>> I have checked the 220 comments that I submitted to the Dutch WCAG 2
>> translation in December 2009
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-auth-trans-nl/2009Dec/0001.html>.
>> Below are a few comments that have not been addressed or not been
>> addressed correctly. Issue g is the most important one. In my opinion,
>> it is even a showstopper for an authorised translation.
>>
>>
>> In normative content (Glossary:
>>
>> a. "general flash and red flash thresholds"
>>    <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#general-thresholddef>  /
>>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#general-thresholddef>
>>    In Note 3 "pair of opposing transitions involving a saturated red"
>> has been tranlated as
>>    "paar tegengestelde overgangen, waaronder verzadigd rood", as if
>> "verzadigd rood"/"saturated red" were in itself an opposing
>> transition. This phrase should be tranlated as "paar tegengestelde
>> waarin verzadigd rood voorkomt" or "paar tegengestelde overgangen van
>> of naar verzadigd rood".
>>
>>
>> b. "idiom"
>>    <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#idiomsdef>  /
>>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#idiomsdef>
>>    "without losing the meaning" has been translated as "zonder dat ze
>> hun betekenis verliezen", as if the individual words would lose the
>> meaning (they don't), while the intent is that the idiom as a whole
>> would lose its meaning. This phrase should be translated as "zonder
>> dat de uitdrukking haar betekenis verliest".
>>
>>
>> c. "large-scale (text)": note 3:
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef>  /
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef>
>>      "the particular fonts in use" has been translated as "de speciale
>> lettertypen die ze gebruiken", as if "particular" here meant "special"
>> (as opposed to "ordinary"), instead of "specific". The note applies to
>> all fonts, not just "special" ones, so the phrase should be translated
>> as "de specifieke lettertypes die ze gebruiken".
>>
>>
>> c. "large-scale (text)": note 5:
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef>  /
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef>
>> The syntax of 'De "equivalente" groottes voor andere lettertypen,
>> zoals de CJK-talen, zouden de equivalente groottes de grootte van de
>> minimale grote letters zijn die voor die talen gebruikt worden.' does
>> not make sense.
>> Better alternative:
>> 'De "equivalente" groottes voor andere lettertypes zoals de CJK-talen
>> zouden de minimale grootte voor grote tekst en de daaropvolgende
>> grotere standaardgrootte voor die talen zijn.'
>>
>>
>> d. "navigated sequentially"
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#nav-seqdef>  /
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#nav-seqdef>
>>     "the order defined for advancing focus" has been translated as "de
>> volgorde gedefinieerd voor vooruit verplaatsend focus", as if the
>> focus actively advances itself (and resulting in unidiomatic Dutch).
>> The phrase should be translated as "de volgorde gedefinieerd voor het
>> voortbewegen van de focus" or (even better) "... voor het verplaatsen
>> van de focus".
>>
>>
>> e. "set of Web pages"
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef>  /
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#set-of-web-pagesdef>
>>     "would be considered different sets of Web pages" has been
>> translated as "zouden beschouwd worden als verschillende verzamelingen
>> webpagina's", but "would" should not be translated as a conditional
>> expression here - to avoid confusion.
>>
>>
>> f. "Web page"
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef>  /
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#webpagedef>
>>     The phrases "non-embedded resource", "other resources" and "Web
>> resource" have been translated as "niet ingebedde hulpbron", "andere
>> hulpbronnen" and "webhulpbron", respectively, i.e. as if resource had
>> something to do with "help". But the intent is web content in general,
>> not just help pages etc; "resource" should be treated as a posh word
>> for "object" (but English-Dutch translating dictionaries are unaware
>> of this usage). My alternative translations are: "niet-ingebed
>> object",  "andere objecten",  "webobject", respectively.
>>
>>
>>
>> In informative content:
>>
>> g. "Important Terms in WCAG 2.0" : "Accessibility Supported"
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#new-terms>  /
>>     <http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/#new-terms>
>>     "Technology features can be used in ways that are not accessibility
>> supported (...) as long as they are not relied upon to conform to any
>> success criterion (...)."
>> has been translated as
>>      "Technologie-eigenschappen kunnen benut worden met methodes die
>> niet door toegankelijkheid ondersteund worden (...), zolang we er niet
>> van op aan kunnen dat ze aan een succescriterium conformeren (...)."
>> Which means: "Technology features can be used in ways that are not
>> accessibility supported (...) as long as we can't assume that they to
>> conform to any success criterion (...)." This translation basically
>> transforms the intent into something that contradicts WCAG.
>> The translation should be "Technologie-eigenschappen kunnen benut
>> worden op een manier die niet door toegankelijkheid ondersteund wordt
>> (niet werkt ...), zolang er niet op gesteund wordt om aan een
>> succescriterium conformeren (...)."
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christophe Strobbe
>>
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-translators/2010AprJun/0092.html
>> At 00:43 12/05/2010, Velleman, Eric wrote:
>>> Dear Coralie, W3C,
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce that the majority of stakeholders have
>>> indicated that they have in fact reviewed the Dutch translation of
>>> the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and that they consider
>>> it to be an accurate translation. A short report of the work sofar is
>>> included below. The list of all issues and the agreed and accurate
>>> translation proposal (as input into the translation) is attached to
>>> this mail. The overview has been sent to the list earlier for the
>>> reviewers and stakeholders.
>>>
>>> The translation as now agreed to by the stakeholders can be fround at:
>>> http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/
>>>
>>> The errata is available at:
>>> http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/WCAG20/errata/
>>>
>>> On behalf of the stakeholders, the LTO and the W3C Benelux Office
>>> would like to advise W3C that from the standpoint of the majority of
>>> the stakeholders involved in the authorized translation of WCAG2.0 to
>>> Dutch, the translation is accurate and a new review round is not
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> We would like to plan a press release together with W3C for the
>>> launch of the Dutch authorized translation.
>>>
>>>
>>> *****
>>> Short report of the translation work and status:
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> Besides comments from the reviewer group, very few comments where
>>> received during the review period. After working on the comments from
>>> the reviewers, we ensured that a majority of the reviewing
>>> organizations sent an email to us and the translators' mailing list
>>> confirming that they have in fact reviewed the document, and that
>>> they consider it to be an accurate translation. Up to today, we
>>> received this message from 17 of the stakeholder organisations taking
>>> part in the translation.
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> Eric Velleman
>>> Accessibility Foundation
>>> University of Twente
>>>
>>> Oudenoord 325,
>>> 3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands);
>>> Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270
>>> www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu /
>>> www.game-accessibility.com
>>>
>>> Accessibility is Member of W3C
>>> =========================
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 09:46:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 July 2010 09:46:39 GMT