View Only
  • 1.  Languages

    Posted Nov 05, 2009 02:23 AM
    Hi,  I'm tired of Clarity's multi-language support, and I have a better idea.  First, the problems:1. Clarity has all supported languages installed all the time.  I do not want Japanese, Korean, French, German etc in my system, for the following reasons: - the database is larger than it needs to be.
    - the upgrade takes longer than it needs to.  I'm typing this while the 12 upgrade oh so slowly updates Dutch.
    - All the languages loaded into clarity take up memory all the time.  Again for languages I will never, ever, be interested in. - for those of you using websphere / weblogic, your .ear file is filled with help,resource, and installer files in languages you don't want.       These problems will only ever get worse as CA adds languages.    2. I want to change the translation myself.  This is because the Swedish translation is, quite frankly, shaky, downright comical at its worst.  Plus our various customers have different terminology, which the would of course like to see in Clarity. Problem is that the files containing the translations are scattered over the system, contain massive duplication, and are over-written every time we upgrade.  3. Countries that do not have a translation have to wait for CA to do one.  So, to my idea: languages should be content packs.   The benefit :- you only have the languages you want or need.  - 3rd parties can maintain their own translations, meaning that the countries for which translations have not been done yet can maintain their own.  - Customers can maintain their own containing their own terminology.  Not that complicated to implement, surely?    /mark    

  • 2.  Re: Languages

    Posted Nov 05, 2009 02:51 AM
    A good point though compared with our translation on this side of the gulf your Swedish is one of the better ones, though not comparable with US English.But I definetely agree with you.The languages should come in packs.The user should be able to choose which ones to install.If should be easier to  change industry specific namining convention if the translater for a reason I cannot understand does not know project management, financial management and translates words out of context or uses Google translate even when there have been for years ABT, NIKU and Clarity documentation localized by third parties.Currently the result best fits a situation where you are on the verge on closing a sale and want to do everything you can to prevent getting it.    FurtherThere should be beta testing for localization GUI and documentation.When you write data in with XOG you only write it in your user locale. When you read exactly the same out your data is sixteen fold because as a bonus you get all the languages.There should be a way to change a less than a perfect translation without business justification.  This could be a prime example for a class action ERQ.How do we proceed?:smileywink:  Martti K.