| From Peter Sampson <petersampson48@...>
| Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
| Subject: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] website update mockup & 2.0 release
> One of the key reasons that the transitioning of the "translated"
> pages was abandoned two years ago was that even then the
> amount of translations was very patchy.
> So, I spent some time today analysing the state of translations on
> the SF/FAQ - the results are in the attached spreadsheet. Note
> carefully that this is a numerical analysis only, I cannot vouch
> for the accuracy or otherwise of any of the translations, or if they
> conform to current Audacity behavior.
> You will see that we have only four complete translations: Spanish,
> French, Dutch and Turkish - and the Italian complete bar one page.
That cannot be fully correct. I know there is a complete translation of
Japanese for example.
Either way, I already said yesterday that "a half or less of the languages
have a near complete translation". I already suggested that the
pre-requisite for removing the links to older SF FAQ's was getting the
translations of the new Manual FAQ's done, just for those languages
which currently have a near-complete SF FAQ translation.
> On the basis of this I believe that the right thing to do is to implement
> what I suggested yesterday which is basically to deprecate these
> SF/FAQs along with their translations by moving them off the SF/FAQ
> page onto a new page of their own but linked to from SF/FAQ page.
I've already largely agreed with that, but the title of the new page
and its text have to be non-confusing. As I already explained, such a
page would not be a "legacy FAQ", because the FAQ's which are
totally wrong for 2.0 have been removed.
So please suggest the page title and text as I asked you yesterday.
> It would possibly be worth moving over the Spanish, Dutch, Turkish
> and Italian translations - but I believe that this would best be done by a fluent
> speaker of those languages so that accuracy and veracity can be checked.
It would be easiest done from the .po file and not from the individual
web pages, I think. And it would be better done by someone familiar
with Wiki formatting, which (except Olivier) none of the current
> However, personally, I would prefer the translators to start afresh with the
> current FAQ content in the manual as we discussed with James earlier
> (and as the French did), as this way they will be working with up to date
> 2.0 material.
Obviously, we want translations of the current Manual FAQ.
The point is that the current links to SF FAQ's (wherever they appear)
cannot be removed until either the languages that are SF near-complete
have their existing content moved into the Manual, or those languages
have the Manual FAQ content translated.
The SF FAQ's would therefore be removed more quickly by moving the
current content into the Manual, which was the purpose of my suggesting
it in the first place. =:)
It's too late now to do this for 2.0, so probably not worth doing unless
you are keen to see the old SF FAQ's removed in the shortest possible
> I do not believe there is much value to be gained from moving over any of
> the partially translated language sections. In that state they do not do us
> credit and I do not believe they bestow multi-lingual credibility on the project.
Any individual SF FAQ's we moved into the Manual would have to be
complete; and I would expect that at least (say, 80%) of the FAQ's
would have to have a translation.
> From: Gale Andrews <gale@...>
> To: audacity-quality <audacity-quality@...>
> Cc: audacity-devel@...
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] website update mockup & 2.0 release
> | From Peter Sampson <petersampson48@...>
> | Mon, 12 Mar 2012 04:57:26 -0700 (PDT)
> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] website update mockup & 2.0 release
> > Gale wrote:
> > >And given it's not committed yet, this was my attempt at handling
> > >the FAQ:
> > >http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq-g.php .
> > >
> > >All the "older" FAQ links which have been retained go to the same
> > >pages as now, though I've modified a few pages (which won't
> > >display until help/faq.php is committed/pushed).
> > >
> > >So another question. For when all the FAQ's are translated in the
> > >Manual, do we want a "legacy FAQ" (probably all the currently
> > >committed content, not my reduced list) for benefit of legacy Mac
> > >and Linux? Is it worth it for limited usership?
> > MANAGEMENT SUMMARY:
> > My recommendation would be to prune the "Older Frequently
> > Asked Questions" entirely from the main SF/FAQ page and
> > instead park them on a new page of their own on the SF site
> > with a link to there from the main SF/FAQ page.
> Summary answer. Maybe OK, but please provide appropriate
> text for the new page after reading the below.
> > Over time they can be dreprecated and eventually deleted.
> > If the FAQ page ends up too sparse looking (but I don't think
> > it will) we could consider incorporating it in the the SF
> > "Documentation Page"
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > REASONING:
> > 1) I though we'd agreed a while back in discussion with James
> > that when 2.0 was released that we would be trimming back the
> > FAQs in on the SF site to just those that were actually
> > "About Audacity" i.e. the very first section on the SF FAQ page
> > (or even trimming the lot) and that for the funtional/operational
> > issues FAQs we would provide a link to the FAQ section in the
> > manual (as you have in the blue box).
> I don't think we had agreed that. I followed what I proposed a few
> weeks ago, Vaughan +1'ed it, and no-one else commented.
> > 2) I thought we had also agreed that many or most of the SF
> > FAQ translations were pretty out of date anyway and that it was
> > thus not worth the editorial effort of moving said translations to
> > the manual. We agreed IIRC that we would rely on the translators
> > working on the material that is now in the manual's FAQ section.
> As you can see from the FAQ's retained on faq-g, a surprising number
> of FAQ's are still more or less acceptable for 2.0.
> I had suggested moving the existing translations of the FAQ's to the
> Manual about two years ago, which you started then abandoned.
> James agreed with you that the moving is quite a lot of work, which I
> pretty much acceded to since I don't have the time to do it if no-one
> else wants to help with it.
> Although moving was a moderate amount of work, it would have been
> better IMO for the non-English/French user than the messy SF FAQ
> page we have now. The text could have just been on a single page in
> the Manual, without links, copied direct in one block from the .po file.
> It would not have impacted the Manual translators. When they were
> ready to translate, they would have translated the current content
> in the Manual, and moved that over the translation of the old content.
> Historical now, anyway.
> > 3) It does not make sense to maintain two parallel (and non-
> > identical) sets of FAQs covering the same ground in the manual
> > and on the SF site. This is redundant duplication and makes for
> > more editorial work. Avoiding duplication and redundancy is a
> > general guiding principle that we work to on the documentation
> > team.
> We are not going to maintain two sets of FAQ's. I suspect that only
> about a half or less of the languages have a near complete translation
> of the old FAQ. Once the Manual FAQ's are translated for those
> languages, we can remove all the "older FAQ's" on faq-g.
> > 4) Are the SF FAQs fully up to date for 2.0 functionality?
> > (You state on your mock-up page that thay are "largely valid
> > for 2.0" - but this is not really good enough.)
> Making them "good enough" is the purpose of translating the current
> FAQ's in the Manual.
> I can't and won't modify the content of the old FAQ's to any degree:
> (1) that really would be duplication (2) doing so would break the
> translations of the older FAQ's so defeat the purpose.
> > If not then that is a further reason to prune them from the SF
> > site with the release of 2.0
> Please consider the needs of those who do not speak English. This is
> a multi-lingual project.
> > I can see the argument for possibly retaining some legacy
> > FAQs somewhere for those users who choose to stick with 1.2
> > but not on the main SF/FAQ page.
> > 5) Retaining the SF/FAQs on the page under "Older Frequently
> > Asked Questions" will only encourage some folk to read the
> > somewhat outdated FAQs on the SF site rather than linking
> > out to the more up to date ones that we have in the manual.
> > A sub-optimal scenario.
> Given you did not want to move the translations of the older FAQ's
> into the Manual, those old links are needed so as not to throw out
> at least some help for those in other languages.
> I can see the slight danger of English/French people reading the
> older FAQ's. So we "could" move all the links on faq-g for individual
> older FAQ's to another page. The reason I didn't do it is that page
> would not (yet) be a "legacy_faq" page. It would be a page of
> FAQ's for languages other than French/English where the content
> is still more or less acceptable for 2.0, so better than no content
> at all. For people using 1.2, valid content would be missing.
> If you can see a reasonable non-confusing way of presenting the
> moved links on a separate page, I'd be prepared to move the older
> links. I don't think the resultant FAQ-g would be too short. When a
> Manual FAQ gets translated, its link would be added to FAQ-g.
> > FOOTNOTE:
> > Your first sentence on the mockup page where it says:
> > "If your question isn't answered here ..." is not really
> > appropriate - as we are not expecting the reader to read
> > FAQs "here" but rather to link to the online manual or
> > their installed Help.
> > I would say something like:
> > "Fuller information can be be obtained from the documentation,
> > or you can contact us.
> Again, readers will be viewing this in other than English. I would agree
> with you if English was the only consideration, but what you suggest
> would just be a link to non-existent documentation for most other
> > And I would recommend placing that under the blue box rather
> > than above it. - leaving the introductory text to just say:
> > "These are some of the most common questions about Audacity"
> -1, while the page has to consider languages other than English.