[MUSIC] Now, let's try to prioritize based on the quality of blocks and gauge what types of mistakes will influence the most, how the text is pursued by readers and users. I prefer to do this with the help of stars, the most important quality block receives six stars, the least important one star. What do you think is the most important thing when translating this app? If you take a look at the screen shot, you'll notice that typos right away. And some users comment on how many typos on the main page has but there is a small paradox here. There are only two comments pertaining to this, the rest of the users consider they are very helpful in training the eyes. The apps average rate is 4.8, which means that that the spelling didn't change user experience much. This is what I was talking about at the very beginning, the errors in the translation. Let us all so obvious the linguist and not so critical to everyone else. Based on this, what do you think is the most important when translating an app interface? I would say that in this app, it's expertise is what attracts the users most. Let's take a look at the text in the app. You can see that they also knows the topic very well. They don't just add eye exercises but explain how each of them is useful. The translator has to keep this expert knowledge when translating the text. Use the correct terms and be able to relate the original thought. If that's not done, the app will no longer be as useful to people as it is now. The second important thing is that the users have to clearly understand how to complete each exercise. If the translation doesn't tells them in which direction they should turn their eyes, the exercise becomes useless. So it would place accuracy second on the list in this case. I would place typos and linguistic mistakes cert. Yes, users can still work with the error regardless of whether there are typos or not, but when the most obvious words are misspelled, the text becomes an eyesore. This can be seen in the comments. I'm sure that if the text was more fluent, the app straighten would be even higher. Readability, I would agree with two stars to this block. Because there isn't that much text on the app itself, there is right couple of pages with very detailed descriptions of the exercises, but each has only two or three sentences. Yes, the text is quite dry and excessive but this has no overt effect on how users perceive the app. Usually, only linguists pay attention to this. I would give compliance informal one star each. I think that compliance is not so important because this is an app from an Indie developer who doesn't really understand what localization is. This means that they didn't have any requirements toward the translation needed to look like. Though we talked about the fact that UI translation has its own requirements every time, in this specific case requirements are null because of the specifics of the app. Since there are no requirements, there's nothing to be compliant with. The formal block which includes formatting space and and so on also has no effect in this case. This isn't important is a for the app developer of the users. They don't have to pay attention to such errors. Here's the second example, the apps description in the store. As we have already discussed, its purpose is to tell users about the app. What do you think is the most important in this case? Here, the users need to at least understand what the app is about, and the best of all download and start using it. As such, the style of writing takes a lead among the most important attributes. It has to be at light, clear and understandable to everyone, otherwise users will just keep the app not wanting to waste their time on deciphering is description. So, a readability gets six stars. Let's move on in the app itself. I placed subject matter in first place because the expertise of the developer was very important in the interface. But in the description, it's not necessary to use field specific technology. Here, general rules are preferred so they can be understood by the wider audience. Registered couple of terms in the descriptions that are related to the field, but we can definitely deal with them. So I would place accuracy in second place when translating this text, not subject matter. It's important to raise a meaning that the develop intended when translating this description. If there are semantic errors the developer will complain about the translation where the users won't clear understand its meaning. Subject matter is important, nevertheless. But in this case, this Quality Block will go in third place not first as was so the case with the interface. Linguistic errors are even less important in the description than they were in the app. Whether you are an eyesore because there are some more text in the description is much more difficult to notice typos if there are around dozens of them. This means is that, only linguists who intentionally look for errors in any text will notice them. Most users will skim through them and won't notice a scene. Compliance is still at the very bottom because there are still no requirements, especially in the text format used here. The same goes for formal errors. For example, there's a missing space here, can you tell well, here it is. I'm sure if I didn't point it out you wouldn't notice it. Now look at how different are other priorities, even though the texts of the same exact app. As I have mentioned, the point is to look at what we are translating and the purpose of the text. For example in one case, we could have paid little attention to the language style. While in the other, the style was the key to how the app is perceived by users. Why did they decide to talk about this in such? Of course in practice, no one spends this much energy on setting priorities. Most of this type of analysis is done in sort only. But before we start walking on any text, we need to clearly understand what we are translating and why? This will set for us as a requirements we should adhere to and will help us understand what can go wrong in the translation. I think you're now ready to prioritize quality blocks based on the text analysis all by yourself. Let's try to do this in a practical exercise.
