On 03/28/2015 19:23, u wrote: > Hi,
>
> intrigeri:
>> I've taken a look at the blueprint -- congrats, great work! Here
>> are a few comments.
>
> Thanks for your valuable feedback. Answers inline.
>
>>> SHOULD ======
>>
>>> * be a secure platform
>>
>> What does this mean?
>
> A platform which has been audited or tested enough to avoid
> malicious injections I guess.
>
>>> * provide feature to write/read comments between translators
>>
>> Would the existing teams happily migrate all their discussions
>> (e.g. reviews and follow-up communication) to that new forum, or
>> would both coexist?
>
> In my opinion, the mailing list and those comments could co-exist.
> But we would need to define what can be discussed on the interface
> and what should be discussed here.
Small comment here: I think that the comment section should be just
for quick agreements e.g. how to translate a word or phrasing on esp.
the particular translation. Those "agreements" could then lead into a
mail or an entry in the glossary. >
>>> MAY ===
>>
>>> * provide context of the translation
>>
>> I don't really understand how this can merely be a MAY when
>> we're talking about translating a website. Maybe I'm just
>> thinking of something else, that's not on the blueprint yet, so
>> I'll elaborate.
>
>> I would see what follows as a MUST when translating web pages
>> (especially for translators who won't build the website
>> themselves, because they're not using Git): "allow translators to
>> view, in the correct order, all strings that come from the entire
>> page being translated, both in English and in the target
>> language".
>
> Ack.
>
>>
>>> * send email notifications
>>
>> It isn't very clear when/what/to whom. Anyway, that's merely a
>> MAY, so it's probably no big deal :)
>
> Send email notifications to reviewers whenever new strings have
> been translated or updated. Send email notifications to translators
> whenever a resource is updated.
>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Also, I see that "provide user roles (admin, reviewer,
>> translator)" is only a SHOULD. This raises a few questions (not
>> necessarily urgent ones, just process stuff to keep in mind):
>>
>> * Would we allow translation from unregistered contributors, or
>> only from logged-in users?
>
> I'd rather not allow translations from non logged-in users, as
> this would make it hard to keep track of modifications. However, we
> could provide a cypherpunk account for users who don't want to
> provide personal details [1]
>
>> * If we don't have such roles, how do we ensure that each
>> translated string has been reviewed?
>
> Hm, I guess we MUST have such roles.
>
>> Do we want to add something about the compatibility of the web
>> interface with assistive (accessibility) technologies? I hear
>> that heavy-JS-based stuff doesn't always gracefully degrade well
>> enough to support these tools.
>
> I don't think that there are many tools which do not rely on JS.
> For me that is not a requirement. People who don't want to use JS,
> could still translate directly via Git.
>
> Cheers u.
>
