Comments Translation answer later

Dear Christophe,
 
Because of the holiday season I will come back to you later this month. Hope that is ok. I will try to convene the stakeholders who read and agreed to publication of the current translation so we can discuss the changes you propose. It would be interesting to see if we can update to a new version of the translation if we have more changes in the errata document. 
 
Kindest regards,
 
Eric
 
________________________________

Van: public-auth-trans-nl-request@w3.org namens Velleman, Eric
Verzonden: ma 28-6-2010 23:07
Aan: Christophe Strobbe; public-auth-trans-nl@w3.org
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra
Onderwerp: RE: Status of Authorized Translation of WCAG2 to Dutch



Hi Christophe,

Thank you for your check. Even though it is a bit late (we had a final round earlier this year where you sent in comments that where used in the document), I fully agree with you on the importance to get the translation right. In the next days, I will discuss with Fons from W3C Benelux about the best steps to take as the other stakeholders have agreed already with this version.
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: public-auth-trans-nl-request@w3.org namens Christophe Strobbe
Verzonden: ma 28-6-2010 19:04
Aan: public-auth-trans-nl@w3.org
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra
Onderwerp: Re: Status of Authorized Translation of WCAG2 to Dutch



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
>=========================

--
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment"
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but
I haven't.

Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:09:42 UTC