>
> What does Microsoft have to do with the GNOME web site? Let's
> If you read what I replied to, it was your statement about
> "internationalization of something as technical as GNOME is a low
> priority". You weren't talking about just the GNOME web site. You were
> talking about the GNOME project as a whole, including software
> localization, translated documentation etc. I think comparing that with
> how Microsoft sees these aspects is *very* relevant. After all, we do
> that in other areas all the time.
First, what I said was a fact, "from his emails I believe he's saying that
coming from his point of view -- as a non-native English speaking person -- internationalization of something as technical as GNOME is a low priority"
Perhaps I misspoke, but I thought we were talking about the GNOME website, not the desktop... it's called context. I may not have been explicitly clear, and for that I am sorry. The discussion of automatically forcing a user to a language on website still has nothing to do with MS.
> So your only gripe is my rant in reply to the troll about computers
> should be for English users, since if you're not understanding English
> you're too stupid and should not be allowed to use one? Or, to give an
> exact quote, "if someone doesn't understand enlgish should not be using
> computers, al least not linux".
My gripe is with the rant, and disregarding someone's point on the basis of a few lines.
I didn't read it as a troll.. I read it as someone not very skillful at English trying to say Linux is flawed in that it is very far from being international friendly, almost to the point of inhibition, and that any given Linux user has learned limited English navigational skills by now. Not, "If you can't read English you are not allowed to use Linux".
I'm not debating whether he's right or wrong, just that he shouldn't be dismissed since he does in fact one of those non-English speakers we're debating about.
> I think you should read that again and try to understand how amazingly
> offensive stupid statements like that is to large parts of this world.
> Then read my response with that in mind.
Nope, you still jumped to conclusions.
> For a number of reasons, voting on this mailing list probably won't
> reflect the wishes of "real" visitors at all. To start with, we're all
> understanding English rather well on this list, aren't we? Then we're
> not at all representative to the world at large.
I'm not saying vote, just some reasoned analysis. Felipe suggested the vote.
> The reason I'm stating that I think international visitors want
> translated content *by default* is based on my own experience, some of
> it as simple as watching my dad do testing of web sites (I tell him
> where to go, he tries to do that, I watch him do stuff without helping).
> As it turns out, he seems to be a very good test object for novice user
> testing :-)
> .
> .
> .
Yes! Content instead of flames, that's what I was waiting for. Felipe argued that *from his own experience* auto-localization is not necessary.. If we remove the US-centricity is the scourge of the world rant, you argue that it *is* necessary based on *your own experience* .. ok, it's balanced.
Your last point is, basically, that depending on which way we go we'll either annoy people with a translation they did not want, or inhibit people without any English experience from using the site at all. Which one is worse? The according to you the second one.. and I agree with you that the best solution is to account for the worst case (assuming the technology works). But it still doesn't mean that Felipe is a Mexican-American nationalist troll set out to push English as the Ubersprache.