okgoogle: > u, thanks for the feedback and guidance. Just wanted to respond here
> to one of the points you made: > "The problem with using Transifex for our website translation is
> that all translateable strings would be displayed completely out of
> context there."
>
> I completely agree this is definitely a concern. In projects in the
> past where I have coordinated Transifex efforts, this is resolved by
> having coordinators and reviewers double-checking the underlying
> translators. Also, part of the onboarding for any new translator is
> first to review the entire website (or software in other
> environments). I have worked on translating very technical projects
> in the past, which especially rely on context of the website (or
> software package), and making sure the strings are being translated
> in context with the rest of the platform is part of QA.
Well, the problem is that we as a project do not speak all the languages
which Transifex proposes. So we cannot check after the translators, we
need to trust peer review within Transifex. We also cannot make sure
that translators visit the website before or know how to use Tails or
any other tools we document.
I myself did some reviews and translations in Transifex and I can assure
you that some translators never used the tools for which they translate
the documentation and have absolutely no idea what they translate*. If
one does not have at least a basic idea of GPG for example, how can one
translate how it works?
So, until now, our idea here was to form translation teams. This ensures
peer-review and a possibility to discuss things here on this
mailinglist. Transifex does not really provide such a thing, except for
comments on translateable strings.
> With Transifex, I can make sure that is not an issue with the Tails
> website. There are several checks and balances to avert out of
> context, poor translations.
