Re: Confusion of Applet and Capplet :)

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

Glynn Foster wrote:
> > Now that is where problems appear, all those are weird names, and if
> > you ask me, I do not know how to translate most of them, which for me
> > seems to be a clue: really bad names. For me applets are "always
> > running things that provide some info or make some tasks easier". That
> > or applet (without translation when I am speaking non English) if I do
> > not want to waste time.
> 
> Okay...some of those names were a little silly....but I don't see much
> of a reason if they don't translate...I mean, there are plenty of
> made up terms everywhere and they aren't translated [shit, if only I
> could think of an example].

You give a perfect reason why terminology should be picked so that it
translates well - because there is already too much invented nonsense
techno-babble that doesn't. There's no need to deliberately make that
situation worse.

There are plenty of other reasons why terminology should be picked so
that it translates easily. Invented nonsense words like "Gizmo",
"Yokeys", "Thingameybobs", "Whizlets" and "Evilets" are particulary bad
examples. The reason is that they simply are nonsense words that give no
information about what they are in themselves. They are thus hard to
understand as terminology even by English users, and the situation just
gets worse when exporting the terminology to another language.

You simply can't translate nonsense to another language (what is the
correct translation?), and replacing it with a "native" nonsense word is
out of the question - people will have a really hard time trying to
realize that native nonsense word A and nonsense word Z in English are
related at all, and that they are really the same thing. Especially as
documentation usually is non-existant.

Importing "as it is" is usually broken. The words use English spelling
and break other languages' spelling and pronounciation rules. Also, some
languages use concatenation of the word and other endings in the
definite form, in plural form, and lots of other grammatical forms. It
will often be *really* weird trying to use the word and apply the
language's grammar.

Trying to translate the spelling is often also hard. Most of the words
above would simply not be recognizable if I tried to transliterate them
into Swedish, as an example. Then you're back to the previous problem -
not recognizable.


"Miniapp" is a totally different thing - it's easily recognizable as
composed of "mini" and "application", and both of those are common words
that are a no-brainer to translate. Also, the reverse recognization is
true, which is equally important - it allows native language users that
may have been exposed to the English word previously to easily
understand what's talked about. To be able to easily guess "what the
English word is" is usually an important factor if you want to get help
on the net.


> With proper documentation this is easily a non-worry...

And this is the problem. There often *is no* proper documentation, and
when you look at translated documentation, it's usually even worse.
There is none. Should there be some, then it's always outdated. Of
course this is sad, but I think it's safe to say that it won't change
any time soon. So relying on documentation, especially translated
documentation, is really bad.


> The worry that I'm talking about is that some people
> will not know if there is any difference between an applet [in the Java
> sense] and an applet [in the panel sense]....I don't know for sure
> if there will be much confusion....I guess it starts to get more confusing
> if people start using Java bindings....I just think it would be neat to
> come up with a new term that isn't used elsewhere...

I understand your problem, but you don't have to use non-translateable
nonsense words to solve it.
Simply pick a terminology that describes the item. I think "panelapp",
"panel program", "panel application", and so on were excellent
suggestions.


> and if it is something as boring as Calum suggested, then at least it will be
> meaningful.

Yes. Meaningful is the key. If a word doesn't have a meaning, it's
usually not translateable.


> > So even if Miniapp is not 100% perfect, I vote for it. People will get
> > the idea fast, I hope: apps create windows and do lots of things,
> > miniapps appear in containers named panels (special windows) and do
> > few things. And it is translatable without causing severe headaches, a
> > rare thing in computer world. :]
> 
> I'm still getting used to the idea of Panel Gizmos ;)

Believe me, many others will have even bigger problems to get used to
it, or even understand it...


> > Or Miniprograms. Just make sure everywhere we use Foo and Minifoo, not
> > Bar and Minifoo. Check how many places use one or the other term, and
> > change the minority, or if equal, choose one. People can name things
> > as they want, but we should use one (and derivates) by default, so it
> > is easier if the user does not want to become a dictionary.
> 
> Miniprogram...well in English that is 3 syllables....and I hate to think
> how many in a different language...

I'd say don't worry about syllables in other languages. Far from all
languages are designed according to the principle "less syllables is
beautiful". The important thing is that it's understandable.


Christian