Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
And - no, it would not require any updates at all. If the program is able to detect &'s, that would be all:

---

I said it would require updates for the collision detection feature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I see some translators here only trusting on Choli's application to do their stuff because it is so "easy". This is however a very bad use of the program.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
For one thing it lets you compare the translated text to the original text, so the task of checking whether your text is getting too long becomes much easier.

---

Cookie is right here. Translators: Please, check in Plus, after translating, that all texts fit in their place... The counter in my program is _not_ correct (it doesn't take into account &s and counts them as 1 character more) and it only gives an aproximate idea of the size of the resulting text. A smaller (shorter) translated text may not fit in the place where the original english text does fit. That's due to the way the text is aligned and placed between lines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
deleting entire sections or keys

---

my program can do that

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
These are things you can't do with Choli's proram. Othewise it's a fine primary tool IMO!

---

true, but it is _not_ an unique tool: Let me repeat: Do not only use my program; once translated (better if you do this at the same time you translate) check the look of the texts in their final place: Plus!' windows, buttons, labels, etc....

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
But hey, most of the time ampersand placement is similar to the English version, right?

---

no, you aren't right. In theory, ampersands should be placed at the first letter of the first word that is a noun or verb of the sentence. That place is where &s make more sense. If that letter makes a collision, the next place to try is the first leter os the 2ns sillabe of that word; not the 2nd letter.
You may find this weird, but think a bit about it, that's the more logical way. And this way doesn't match with the english translation and even less with the english placements of &s.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
You're asserting that translations made with the translator are always faulty?

---

maybe not always, but quite often. I, myself, do make a lot of errors translating with my tool. I think a sentence fits (it has less characters) but I usually have to see it in its button/label/etc... in Plus to see that I'm wrong, and I have to translate it again once or twice until I get a nice translation; always looking at Plus. This is very important.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli

no, you aren't right. In theory, ampersands should be placed at the first letter of the first word that is a noun or verb of the sentence. That place is where &s make more sense. If that letter makes a collision, the next place to try is the first leter os the 2ns sillabe of that word; not the 2nd letter.
You may find this weird, but think a bit about it, that's the more logical way. And this way doesn't match with the english translation and even less with the english placements of &s.

---

Umm, I think you may have misunderstood my (somewhat unclearly phrased) sentence regarding this... I didn't mean that specific ampersand placement within a sentance is the same in other languages as in English (you would obviously get collisions all the time by doing this). All I'm saying is: Every time there is a & in any English key, there's supposed to be one in the translated key as well and vice versa (unless you discover some obvious mistake by Patchou).  Am I completely mistaken here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Choli

Cookie is right here. Translators: Please, check in Plus, after translating, that all texts fit in their place... The counter in my program is _not_ correct (it doesn't take into account &s and counts them as 1 character more) and it only gives an aproximate idea of the size of the resulting text. A smaller (shorter) translated text may not fit in the place where the original english text does fit. That's due to the way the text is aligned and placed between lines.

---

I'm starting to hate these misinterpretations. I know your program doesn't reproduce Plus!' internal line breaks, but at least it gives you an idea of how long your text is getting compared to the original! Something you can't determine _at all_ in notepad! I realize that the need for double checking afterwards in Plus! is present using both methods, but that doesn't automatically make Notepad a better choice.

Using Choli's translator:
*Easy, comfortable translation tool with a nice font.
*Most of your translated text will fit in Plus!' confined spaces, as you saw to it that your translated texts remained shorter than the originals in Choli's program.

Using Notepad:
*Less comfortable tool. Risk of selecting a buch of keys and deleting them (at least it happens 4 me sometimes )
*More translated text won't fit Plus! since you had no idea of how much space you were consuming.

Ok, are we clear now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
"It is by no means as easy as you think. Ampersand collision checking is very complex. Even checking if an ampersand is missing or not is very complex."

I never protested against that. In fact, I said that I didn't know whether or not the feature could be programmed.

---

I'm not saying you've said that it is dead-easy though... My post was meant in general, to read by others also, nothing personal.

btw, such thing can be programmed though (like everything else), but it is complex and will need consant tweaking and updating by its nature...

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
"Such a feature is not to be taken as granted. Human control and interpretation IS needed."

I never asserted that human control wasn't needed. In fact, I said that it would not make errors disappear.

---

yep true. But what I mean and warn for is that, in practice, most people start to blindly trust on those automatic tools if they exist. A very nice example of what I mean: the many PC-tweak, registry scheck, anti-adware tools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
You're asserting that translations made with the translator are always faulty?

---

not alyways, but very very often, yes indeed...

In fact, I even bet most of the translation for the 3.50 version have a fault in them if they are checked only with Choli's tool to see if every key has been translated!! Because there is an error in the original English file. This can only be picked out if the translator has painstakenly checked every key, its purpose, its length and its place (like every translator is supposed to do anyways!!!)...

The point is: The tool is a very excellent and fine piece of program. But it has to be used for what it is and for what it can do. And that is only a very very small part in the whole translation process. Unfortunatly, many (new/lazy) translators turn this around, and the tool becomes a very big part of the translation process....

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
But many of these lazy translators will do poor translations no matter what method they use.

---

yeah, you got a very good point there....

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
If the translator pays attention, Choli's translator will be as useful as the method you're currently defending, even though no one (no one here, at least) has attacked it. It shows the same things as the textfile-method contains.

---

It's not a matter of defending one method to the other. Using Choli's program is NOT a method. It is PART of a much bigger process...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
Umm, I think you may have misunderstood my (somewhat unclearly phrased) sentence regarding this... I didn't mean that specific ampersand placement within a sentance is the same in other languages as in English (you would obviously get collisions all the time by doing this). All I'm saying is: Every time there is a & in any English key, there's supposed to be one in the translated key as well and vice versa (unless you discover some obvious mistake by Patchou).  Am I completely mistaken here?

---

yep, I'm afraid you are...

* In many keys, the ampersand IS a valid character and NOT a special sign to make hotlinked-letters.
* In some keys, the ampersand will result in a hotlinked letter, but in fact, can't be used.
* You also need to take in account that spelling errors can happen in the English file (but this is more a matter of interpreting the computed comparrison result. Although this is quite often were the problem/danger of the use of such tools is!)
* etc...

So you're back to square one. Each and every key NEEDS to be indexed, indentified and updated for each build as keys often are replaced, moved, fixed, etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
I know your program doesn't reproduce Plus!' internal line breaks, but at least it gives you an idea of how long your text is getting compared to the original!

---

I'm realy afraid not!
It is quite often that I come across much shorter lines in characters, but the final result will still be a too big text in the dialogs (and this without taking in account line breaks)!!!! The same goes for the opposite: In the Dutch translation there are also many lines which are much longer, yet produce a nice looking and sometimes even shorter output!

The character count is not something to take in account, even not a little bit, it is nothing more then a gimmick...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZrednaZ
Something you can't determine _at all_ in notepad! I realize that the need for double checking afterwards in Plus! is present using both methods, but that doesn't automatically make Notepad a better choice.

Using Choli's translator:
*Easy, comfortable translation tool with a nice font.
*Most of your translated text will fit in Plus!' confined spaces, as you saw to it that your translated texts remained shorter than the originals in Choli's program.

Using Notepad:
*Less comfortable tool. Risk of selecting a buch of keys and deleting them (at least it happens 4 me sometimes )
*More translated text won't fit Plus! since you had no idea of how much space you were consuming.

Ok, are we clear now?

---

Nope.... again I am not defending or arguing between two different methods!!!!!

There is NO such thing as "Choli's translator"-method and "notepad"-method.

Choli's translator is a small tool to aid in the much much bigger translation process, it is NOT a method on its own, it is only a small part of the process that a translator must do!!!!

this includes:
* the use of dictionanaries, thesaurus, etc...
* spellchecking
* manual tweaking of the INI file
* checking for ampersand collisions
* checking if lines aren't too long
* yes, even checking if final results _look_ good (the visual aspect counts too and is very important)...
* testing when an error occures and thus how to translate it (don't blindly trust on the English translation)
* checking consistency within the translation and with other Windows products
* checking for 'technical' mistakes (eg: double spaces)
* checking if keys/sections aren't misplaced (yes, even in the English one this happens!!!)
* checking if everything is translated (and THIS is were Choli's tool comes in)
* etc...
* etc...

Remark: The literal job of 'translating' is only a small part of the entire process. This is also one of the mistakes that people make when they are going to translate something (realy talking in general now, eg: the difference between translating a piece of text in school and translating a computer program).

---

btw, I realy hate to "disagree" with you people (the regular pro-translators), what I'm saying here goes more for the new/lazy/newbie/unaware translator.  So don't take all this personaly

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
In some keys, the ampersand will result in a hotlinked letter, but in fact, can't be used.

---

in those cases, a double ampersand (ie: && ) has to be used. Windows detects the && and it puts a single &,  instead of underlining anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
btw, I realy hate to "disagree" with you people (the regular pro-translators), what I'm saying here goes more for the new/lazy/newbie/unaware translator.  So don't take all this personaly

---

The same here. My answers in previous posts don't go for a specific person.. they are general for eveybody. I know that the people who are replying in these last posts are experienced translators.

---

well, in general I agree with Cookie, so take his answers in the previous posts as if they were mine

Well. I'm glad you've now underlined who the recipients are, and so on (though I would have liked it better, if you had made it clear from the beginning). Yet, still too much remains unclear, for me to bother commenting on it all. So I'll leave it there. I myself have not got any need what-so-ever for the feature, and was merely trying to improve the software. Apparently it will never be done, so any further arguments would be futile. It wouldn't lead to any other things than the common semi-surrealistic meta-discussion, where the fact that we actually don't disagree on the real subjects would disappear.

Godspeed and farewell, fellow plussians

quote:

---

Originally posted by NapalmLos
and was merely trying to improve the software. Apparently it will never be done

---

don't say that. I really apreciate your comments a lot. The fact that I think or say that I don't like or don't agree with them doesn't mean that they won't never be included in the program.

If it comes a day where I have enough free time, I'd like to improve the program. In fact, a lot of time ago, I started the version 2 of the translator; but I did only the GUI (graphical interface) and it was half-done. Belive me, I hope I have some free time to continue that work some day and that day I'll reconsider all your suggestions.

Ok

The ideal would be an implementation of all the translator-activites, such as checking the translating windows and menus; they could be displayed beside the translation; and could be updated when a button was clicked or just when a subsection was left. This would make the process manageable for even the laziest translators. It would also allow testers to quickly go through each translation-file and check for errors.

I don't suppose the idea is new though.

for many (if not most) dialogs that would require to create the whole Plus! interface on your own as many stuff changes according to what is pressed/selected/etc.... The only thing you could use is the layout of existing dialogs. Everything else must be recreated by yourself. Not only that, but this is again very version depended. All in all, you would end up with a copy of Plus!, the difference being that this "copy" wouldn't be functional in messenger...

In short, idea is not new, but in practice this is way to much useless work for something you could easly do in Plus! itself already.

Perhaps if Patchou made a small program featuring a long list of every single dialog box that Plus! can throw at you... You'd be able to quickly go over all of 'em and make any necessary changes. As Plus! has an ever increasing number of dialogs (some of them being hard or nearly impossible to find and open), something like this might just prove to be a success.

(maybe this was a bit close to what NapalmLos suggested.. but hey.. )

Hmm.. come to think of it there was once a document with instructions on how to open every single dialog.. is Patch still keeping that up-to-date?

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
for many (if not most) dialogs that would require to create the whole Plus! interface on your own as many stuff changes according to what is pressed/selected/etc.... The only thing you could use is the layout of existing dialogs. Everything else must be recreated by yourself. Not only that, but this is again very version depended. All in all, you would end up with a copy of Plus!, the difference being that this "copy" wouldn't be functional in messenger...

In short, idea is not new, but in practice this is way to much useless work for something you could easly do in Plus! itself already.

---

I didn't say that it had to be done in Choli's software - it could be a translator-version of Plus!; thus not being a copy, but a new and functional version. But yeah, the cost-benefit-analysis on this thing isn't too happy. Yet, it wouldn't be useless, but if the software should remain free, the work-effort of the feature would seem too great compared to its use, which is small, though existing.