Development ideas - summary - Traduc

17 Avr 2002


      Voici le "brouillon" du message à envoyer sur la liste lampadas. Comme 
précisé précédemment, puisqu'il est sensé représenter nos idées en tant que 
groupe, je le présente ici pour relecture et corrections éventuelles.
J'ai essayé autant que possible de condenser les consensus, mais il peut y 
avoir des aspects à revoir.
Notez également que l'anglais n'est certainement pas parfait. Donc s'il y a 
des choses qui vous choquent trop, n'hésitez pas à corriger aussi...
===
Hello all,
The intent of this mail is to summarise the results of the discussion that 
took place in the french mailing-list traduc@traduc.org recently, leading the 
contributors of the "LDP fr" to discuss needed features and development ideas 
for an interface similar to Lampadas.
Now that our two projects are merging, we think that it would be a good idea 
to give you the results of our thoughts. The intent is also to start a new 
discussion, together, and define what we want Lampadas to be exactly at the 
end.
I] The translation process
As traduc.org is today used for translation only purposes, our main 
contribution may be on this point.
A] Today
By now, the translation process consists of three steps, involving three 
types of users : the translator, the proof-reader(s) and the project 
coordinator. As the translator does the main job, he is designed responsible 
for his document and also quite naturally the document maintainer.
- the translator choose a document or a new version of a maintained document 
is avaible,
- the translator translates or makes the appropriate changes,
- when finished, he announces the document ready for proof-reading on the 
mailing-list,
- one or more proof-readers contact the translator and help him correcting 
its translation (diffs),
- when satisfied, the final version is submited to the project coordinator, 
who publish it if he estimates that enough precautions about its reliability 
have been taken. What "enough precautions" is depends of the nature of the 
document, and of te number of mistakes found by the proof-readers.
This system works well and for a quite long time now, but it has also proven 
its limits : the coordinator has too much work, and very few steps are really 
automated.
B] The future
We needed a translation process manager, so we started to discuss the changes 
this interface would introduce, as well as what would be automated and what 
would not.
Changes :
- There would not be only one project coordinator this time, allowing the 
amount of work to be divised among two or three. This also avoids some lack 
of responsivness when the coordinator has no or not enough time to spare for 
the projet.
- The process could be a little more standardized than before (for the 
proof-reading step, mainly), becoming more clear to the newcomers. The exact 
rules (numbers of proof-readings needed, exact process of the proof-reading 
step) have not being detailed yet.
- A new kind of user could be introduced, similar to your markup assistants, 
providing help to the translators having difficulties to pass the 
XML/SGML/... validation automation.
What would be automated :
- The registrations of documents, traductions and users.
- The publication of the documents (web, FTP, archives...).
- The translation process. Excluding the points in the "What would not be 
automated" section, the interface should automate all the steps; from the 
selection of a particular document to its publication approval by one of the 
coordinators.
- The interface should include a depository of the changes in a document 
(translations, proof-readings, comments), like the one a CVS depository could 
provide, but probably in a more user-friendly way.
What would not be automated :
- The discussions between the contributors to the project. The mailing-list 
would of course be preserved and a translator would still have to subscribe 
to it. The discussions between a translator and his proof-reader(s) could 
still be made privately by email; a summary of these discussions could be 
attached to the document, for later reference.
- The approval of a publication by a project coordinator; this task is 
simplified, but one still has to say "ok" before the document is published.
Some alredy existing tools have been proposed for particular tasks :
- Roundup ( http://roundup.sf.net ) : to track user and proof-readers error 
reports.
- MoinMoin ( http://moin.sf.net ) : to reference common traduction problems, 
solutions and general help to the translator.
II] The document redaction process
As stated previously, it would be a good idea to allow contributions to the 
LDP in any langage, and not just the english -> foreign langages translation 
scheme that is actually in use.
But, as we do not have discussed this point further, and that you do have a 
good experience on this point, we let you speak first. :-)
And remember that it is just an overview of what we have discussed apart. We 
have to start a discussion on this...
-- 
Xavier.