Re: Restarting W3C Volunteer Translation Tracking

> Having had the time to review the limitations and gaps of our previous
> tool and process in this space, we would like to offer a new approach to
> the management of volunteer translations,

A long-term and frequent W3C translator [1], I understand and second
most of the changes and suggestions.

However, what I miss are two things quite substantial: making
contributions easy, and recognizing contributions.

As I understand it (though I may certainly have missed or
misunderstood something), the proposals have by now turned everything
in favor of the W3C.

For quality, it makes absolute sense and is absolutely advisable for
the W3C (everyone involved, in fact) to aim for high translation
quality. However, this ever increases the burden on translators to
spend more time on translations, whether with the initial translation
work, translation maintenance, or both. While quite very much
understandable, again, this is a deterrent to volunteer for
translations. (Personally, I’ve pulled away from W3C translation work
with the process changes a few years ago, simply because I couldn’t
afford to go through lengthy processes on top of doing all the
legwork. I totally got the W3C back then, as I do now, but I’ve
already experienced and responded to the deterring effect of tighter
policies—and the W3C almost lost me, as a former frequent contributor,
because of that.)

For recognition, it is clear that the W3C will want to make
translations appear “official” and endorsed and even W3C-like, and (if
unintentionally) cut out us translation people unknown to them.
Absolutely understandable just like the quality considerations. But
not even mentioning, let alone firmly anchoring any kind of
recognition of all the many hours of work that go into translations
(just try to translate a rather small spec like w3.org/TR/ruby) looks
astonishingly lop-sided and comes off ignorant of all this work that I
here *much* hope to have overlooked something :)

Translators, at least the ones I’ve interacted with on W3C lists, are
not looking for a cheap stunt and recognition. But the development
now, again as I understand and may well misunderstand it, seems to
suggest that it would not even be necessary to allow for quick
translation work (ironically then losing sight of the greater picture,
namely making W3C contents available to everyone), and neither even a
gesture to recognize translators’ hard work.

What I as a long-term contributor would like to see is

a) a process that allows for rapid translations that could be marked
prominently as “unofficial/unreviewed translations” (and which may
certainly be handed off for further refinement), and

b) some solid ways of recognition, at the least including names of
translators and links to their personal sites and portfolios

—because that, I feel, is still an incredibly cheap and easy thing to
do for the W3C, while also being a powerful gesture recognizing said
hard and entirely pro bono community work. That the W3C would need to
make sure translator links are legit and contain no spam, then, is
entirely the W3C’s problem—one it should tackle with pride once it
understands how tremendously much it benefits from the translators
community here, because we, if I can at all speak for others here, do
quite much for the W3C already.

Make translations easy and worthwhile for us, don’t keep us at arm’s length.

Not that clear as I wished to put it that quickly, more colorful than
it may have needed to be, but well.

 Jens.


[1] https://meiert.com/de/publications/#translations

-- 
Jens Oliver Meiert
https://meiert.com/en/

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2018 12:39:22 UTC