Re: [poedit-users] ANN: Poedit 1.4.0_pre1 pre-release

Hi,

Cristian Secară wrote:
> Can I put back the blue/yellow marking for untranslated/fuzzy
> strings ?

I'd rather not, it had a number of problems:

(1) colored backgrounds are totally nonstandard
(2) they caused problems with unusual color themes -- depending on 
user's color settings, it can totally mess the UI
(3) also, they're useless if you're color-blind, so the colors 
shouldn't be the _only_ indicator
(4) the colors are arbitrary, don't have any associated meaning
(5) you can't see them under selected items at all (so e.g. pressing 
the "fuzzy" button doesn't seem to do anything to new users, because 
color change happens under current selection, where you can't see it)
(6) it conflicts with planned syntax and (in case of fuzzy entries) 
translation problems highlighting -- it's hard to mark whitespace 
with different background if you already use the background for other 
purposes, or to visibly underline problems if you don't have 
high-contract background

On the other hand, the new approach (bold font = untranslated, italics 
font = fuzzy):

(1) is more standard and not arbitrary (bold font is commonly used 
for "new" items, e.g. unread emails -- untranslated string is a new 
entry the translator has to deal with; italics is used to signify 
that text fragment needs attention, it emphasizes it)
(2) has better usability because it doesn't rely on colors alone
(3) blends well with any color theme
(4) is visible even under current item
(5) uses standard background that is good for editing text on and so 
errors/spelling/syntax/warnings markers on it can use their usual 
colors without the risk of low-contrast conflicts

I think the only serious problem with the new scheme is its use of 
italics for fuzzy entries. It was pointed to me (and I should have 
thought of it myself) that when you're translating something, fuzzy 
entries are just another kind of untranslated stuff. And italics is 
very hard to spot, so it's easy to miss that there are untranslated 
strings. So the next pre-release will use bold font for these too, 
but differentiate it with different _text_ (not background) color. 
(Notice that you can distinguish fuzzy and untranslated in two ways 
then: by color and by the fact that bold-with-translation is fuzzy 
and bold-without-translation is brand new.)

Maybe it should use dark blue for untranslated text too, I'm not 
sure -- as long as it's only slightly off the standard color 
(typically black), it shouldn't carry any of the problems mentioned 
above with it.

> Please correct (or ask the translator to correct) a bug in the
> Romanian translation, two missing "t" for the *.pot extension at
> string GNU Gettext templates (*.pot)|*.pot|All files (*.*)|*.*
> where the actual Romanian translation is
>   Şabloane GNU Gettext (*.po)|*.po|Toate fişierele (*.*)|*.*

Thanks for spotting! Apparently, several other translations were 
affected by the same bug, should be all fixed now.

Thanks,
Vaclav

-- 
PGP key: 0x465264C9, available from http://pgp.mit.edu/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
Poedit-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/poedit-users

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBHx9xXxDYa/UZSZMkRAjdwAJ9X+NP/JOkV8GKNwBghP/AKLXFgzgCfU8Q1
pWC6EYyTzbNfZ9f41m6J9ak=
=kglN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----