Published on February 28, 2014
Why Localization Standards Chase Tingley Spartan Software, Inc
“I find it rather puzzling that this small industry has such difficulties designing robust standards.” - Anon L10n Technologist
Carl Cargill, “Why Standardization Efforts Fail” (2011) Six major categories of standards failure: 1. The standard fails to get started. 2. Lack of consensus / deadlock during standard creation. 3. “Feature creep” causes the standard to miss the market opportunity. 4. Standard is finished and the market ignores it. 5. Standard is finished, implementations are incompatible. 6. The standard is accepted and is used to manage the market. (IP encumberance) Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0014.103
Feature Creep Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pennstatelive/8490121138/
Feature Creep “The most frequent use of feature creep in a standards committee is by organizations that have an implementation that is very similar to the proposed specification except for “a little bit extra here….” Do this ten times, and suddenly you have a bloated spec or a spec that just plain can’t work.” Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0014.103
What’s contributed to feature creep in L10n? ● Many of our standards are driven by existing implementations. ● Implementers are reluctant to modify existing versions: ○ Fear of loss of competitive advantage ○ Disrupt installed user base ○ Lack of engineering resources ● Tension between academic and commercial interests
Incompatible Implementations Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/5610683006
Incompatible Implementations “In software standards, there is almost always ambiguity, usually through omission. If an attribute is poorly (or sometimes, not at all) defined in the specification, or if the statement lends itself to ambiguity, there is a possibility that the implementers will choose a different response or implementation than that which was originally intended. Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0014.103
What’s contributed to incompatibility in L10n? ● Specification ambiguities / optional behaviors ● Lack of reference implementations to clarify intended behaviors ● Lack of test suites / certification process to guarantee compatibility ● Difficulties in modifying existing implementations ● Feature creep has compounded the problem!
Solutions (Recommendations, really.)
Make smaller standards. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelheiss/3090102907/
Make smaller standards ● Decompose complex problems into smaller buildingblocks ● Avoid “one-size-fits-all” solutions ● Simplify individual solutions and implementations ● Allow standardized components to be reused, creating network effects ● Separate academic and commercial concerns
Let buyers drive the bus. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/swthomson/3759243339/ Used with permission.
Who do standards benefit the most? Not tool vendors! ● Standards constrain functionality ● Standards make software components interchangeable ● Standards reduce tool lock-in Not LSPs! ● Many LSPs regard any technology they possess as competitive advantage. ● Standards reduce LSP lock-in.
Translation buyers have the most to gain! ● Standards streamline supply chains, reducing cost. ● Standards allow for flexibility in tool choice. ● Standards limit lock-in at the data and process level, allowing for flexibility in vendor choice.
The industry needs more buyer pressure ● Identify core use cases and technologies that should be commoditized ● Seek strict standards that drive tool functionality, not vice- versa ● Increase collaboration between buyers to ensure compliance and interoperability ● Think of $$ spent on standards development as long-term investment to reduce OPEX
Thank You! Chase Tingley firstname.lastname@example.org Twitter: @ctatwork
Presentación que realice en el Evento Nacional de Gobierno Abierto, realizado los ...
In this presentation we will describe our experience developing with a highly dyna...
Presentation to the LITA Forum 7th November 2014 Albuquerque, NM
Un recorrido por los cambios que nos generará el wearabletech en el futuro
Um paralelo entre as novidades & mercado em Wearable Computing e Tecnologias Assis...
TAUS Annual Conference 2013. ... The TAUS Annual Conference is a non ... But if translation becomes a utility and all citizens of the world become users, ...
TAUS is a resource center for the global language and translation industries. TAUS. Home ; Services. QUALITY DASHBOARD ACADEMY DATA CLOUD. Review ; News ...
FEISGILTT 2014 Accepted ... I gave at the 2013 TAUS User Conference, titled "Why ... encountered in previous localization standards ...
... Why Customization Should Be Standard ... it is at any given time possible to provide users with the latest version of localization ... TAUS Open Source ...
GALA Global. Globalization ... The supply chain for translation and localization confounds many organizations because of the complexities ... championing ...
At the TAUS User Conference 2012, Jack discusses how Smartling have attacked the Web 2.0 market and the enterprise markets using Agile ...
It’s our great pleasure to invite you to the 4th Translation and Localization Conference which ... 2013. Subtitles Avalable ... at TAUS User ...
... for a summary of the 2013 TAUS Industry leaders Forum. ... compliancy standards for the ... of Localization at PTC and member of the TAUS ...