W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-translators@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: German Translation WCAG 2.1 - Disapproval

From: Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 16:18:59 +0200
Message-ID: <fb852096-4768-7609-8812-ef7b3025e3b1@duckflight.de>
To: w3c-translators@w3.org


Am 06.05.22 um 13:40 schrieb Eric Eggert:
> This feels like a very editorial change, so I took the liberty to adjust 
> the sentence in the following way:
> 
>     Durch Aufforderung des Benutzers angehalten und nicht fortgesetzt,
>     bis der Benutzer dies anfordert.


Sounds good.


>     My translation for readers to understand the meaning easily:
>     Technologien für Webinhalt müssen über Benutzeragenten verfügen, die
>     Barrierefreiheit unterstützen und diese Benutzeragenten müssen für
>     (End)benutzer verfügbar sein.
> 
>     Sometimes you just have to add a bit to a German translation to say
>     it in a way that would be understood by a German like the English
>     text would be understood by an English reader.
> 
> I played around with this sentence for a while but it just doesn’t work 
> out with the UND of the previous point. As you note this is a stylistic 
> change and pretty hard to understand in the original, I think being 
> closer to the original is the better decision for now.
> 
> I would love to have simpler wording for this (and other parts of WCAG) 
> in the original at some point.

That UND is a logical operator between two requirements. Clearly written 
by a programmer's mind.

After the UND (between 1. and 2.) the next requirement does not need to 
build a sentence with the first statement, even though, in the EN 
original, the author tried to do that.
He failed by writing the beginning of the next sentence (after 2.) with 
a capital letter which can only indicate a new sentence.

Therefore I would either use a full stop or a semicolon (like for the 
ORs later) after "wurde".

The second statement (2.) can be two sentences.

EN orig:
The Web content technology must have accessibility-supported user agents 
that are available to users.

I'll cut that into a statement that holds two sentences.
EN cut:
1. The Web content technology must have accessibility-supported user agents.
2. These user agents need to be available to users.

DE cut:
1. Technologien für Webinhalt müssen über Benutzeragenten verfügen, die
Barrierefreiheit unterstützen.
(1. Für Technologien für Webinhalt muss es Benutzeragenten geben, die 
Barrierefreiheit unterstützen.)
2. Diese Benutzeragenten müssen für (End)benutzer verfügbar sein.

Some might say it is too far from the original to cut sentences like 
this and add the object of the first sentence as the subject of the next.
I remember one english paragraph that consisted of one sentence that I 
translated with 7 or 8 sentences. It was understandable and correct 
instead of just "translated correctly".

It's like rewriting long functions into many small understandable ones 
and connecting them by calling one in the other.

But this is not an objection to the current translation. I see this as a 
general statement using this as an example.
Translators, if long sentences are not easily understandable in your 
language, cut them into pieces, understand them yourself and write them 
down so that the reader can understand them.

If it's accessible, but not understandable, it's not accessible.

STS
Received on Friday, 6 May 2022 14:19:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 6 May 2022 14:19:14 UTC