Re: Comments Translation answer later

Dear Eric,

At 12:09 1/07/2010, Velleman, Eric wrote:
>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.

Thanks for this.
I will be attending conferences for most of the next two weeks, but I 
will be available again near the end of the month.

Best regards,

Christophe


>
>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


-- 
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 12:52:14 UTC