Better Localization http://www.betterlocalization.com/ Leads for better localization en-us Nucleus CMS v3.2 © Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://www.betterlocalization.com//nucleus/nucleus2.gif Better Localization http://www.betterlocalization.com/ <![CDATA[Sybase.com]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=96 Sybase website is quite simple and at first sight it looks comfortable. Let's browse it through to see whether the first impression continues.

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each locale:
- Each home page is customized both in content and images, with the customized design on layout. Some are sharing the same layout.
1.2 Navigation:
- Organized. The global website option is customized for each locale.
1.3 Content coverage
- Content coverage includes products, solutions, support, services, onling shopping, and a personalizable part or training and a developer network.
1.4 Overall content quality:
- Sampled: the translation quality (I mean translation quality, not localization quality. That is, reading the translation, we know that it's strictly translated from the source language) is quite good. Unexpectedly, the first impression discontinues in this part: there are unwanted spaces (I know something about how the spaces are left there, since I myself was a translator years ago. However, personally or professionally, I believe it's easy to find them out) found in Chinese versions. And there are missing lines (on the company introduction page) found in Chinese simplified version.
1.5 Interactive features:
- Interactive features include newsgroups and My Sybase for support purpose.
Most feedback features are directed to worldwide version. And Chinese simplified version "Feedback" goes to "Contact Us" page. Online shopping part is not localized.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- Localization coverage is around average level. In other words, some parts are not/not fully localized.
2.2 Newsletter/site update notification option:
- Not easy to find, depends on search.
2.3 Feedback content:
- An open feedback form with feedback type defined, no specific questions.
2.4 Content update:
- Good so far.
2.5 Cultural customization:
- There are certain customization in each locale, in some degree.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- Consistent.
3.2 Frame functionality:
- Average.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Good.
4.2 Interactive functions:
- Functional.
]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=96 Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:47:13 -0400 <![CDATA[IBM.com]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=94 IBM.com to see how large volume of information can be well-organized.

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each locale:
- Each home page is customized both in content and images, with the same design on layout.
1.2 Navigation:
- Clear.
1.3 Content coverage
- Content coverage includes solutions, supports, customized services, online order, and knowledge base etc.
1.4 Overall content quality:
- Generally speaking, good. Though there are some Traditional Chinese words in Simplified version.
1.5 Interactive features:
- Good so far.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- Most contents are localized.
2.2 Newsletter/site update notification option:
- Yes.
2.3 Feedback content:
- Questions are specific and different parts have different feedback forms.
2.4 Content update:
- The latest promotion is easy to reach ;-)
2.5 Cultural customization:
- The site offers different version on each locale, with a good understanding of cultural customization.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- Consistent.
3.2 Frame functionality:
- Good.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Good.
4.2 Interactive functions:
- Good.
]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=94 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:37:49 -0400 <![CDATA[Transco Merges with Welocalize]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=93 Transco News announced the merger of Welocalize and Transco. There might be colleagues within and outside the localization industry who would like to know more about the merger and how it will bring something new to all of us.

Welocalize has no office in China even after the two mergers of Connect Global and M2 Enterprises. That leads to a natural wondering that Welocalize will seek presence in this high potential market. As a rising service provider based in Beijing, Transco grows steady and stable during the years, having its own client basis and operates unique in the area. A perfect match at first fact.

The transition completed successfully with no surprise. I guess there might be no surprise by the merger but there will be surprises by the smooth transfer. Both sides are open-minded to changes, and in practice there are very few changes and the transition finishes with a predicated success. There are some basic factors which influence/lead to the successful outcome, and the following points will be among them:

Transco and Welocalize have different clients with no overlap. The merger makes a new company which equals Transco + Welocalize, which will better serve both existing and future clients. Of course, existing clients have some privileges to reach it. And future clients will reach what they expect with the new Welocalize.
The two companies share similar organizational culture. Improving with great passion and sharing some basic values, both are improving organizational performance successively.
Transco operation will be relatively independent. Adhering to its previous promises of offering efficient and sufficient localization solutions to its clients, Transco is still serving them with the same policy and process, even the same contacts. There are gaps between Welocalize and Transco pricing systems, and they will still be independent, as a long-term plan.
Transco is not over-staffed, therefore no staff draining and with the production needs there are employees added during the merger. Usually, merger resulted unstable situations mainly caused by integration of client interfaces and staff cutting.

New Welocalize will offer both existing clients and future clients a global service with a full package of engineering, localization, translation and testing solution. Current clients will be entitled to services with no changes, staying stable and unchanged with the previous promises and agreements. New Welocalize will reach over $30 million in revenue, with over 250 employees in seven offices in major markets.

With the changes within localization industry in the past 14 months, starting with SDL and Lionbridge, but not ending with Welocalize and Transco, everyone is seeking a way out, either it's an exit strategy or an enlarging plan, to stay stable or at least for a survival. As the leader in middle tier companies, new Welocalize will be a bright star in the GILT industry, keep an eye on it ;-)
]]> Elly Liu http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=93 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:33:29 -0400 <![CDATA[Take a survey: Localization Salary]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=92 CommonSenseAdvisory Localization Salary Survey. It is available in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Chinese, Polish, Portuguese, etc. Links as follows:


Take the salary survey in English: http://tinyurl.com/jnnwc

Participez à l'enquête en Français : http://tinyurl.com/zcvlr

Rispondi al sondaggio in italiano: http://tinyurl.com/jk2kg

Beantworten Sie die Umfrage auf Deutsch: http://tinyurl.com/kg8gh

Participa de la encuesta en español: http://tinyurl.com/z5lv2

Participe da pesquisa em português: http://tinyurl.com/jxn6t

中文: http://tinyurl.com/ecr95]]> Others http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=92 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:19:24 -0400 <![CDATA[Intel.com]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=91 Intel.com is collecting feedbacks for the website, the questions are quite specific. Let's browse Intel.com from Global Website Review's view:

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each locale:
- Each home page is inheriting similar style from worldwide home page.
1.2 Navigation:
- Basically functions well.
1.3 Content coverage
- Essentially, the content coverage is above average.
1.4 Overall content quality:
- Passable.
1.5 Interactive features:
- There are several features provided, while the quality is average.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- Though there are many parts not localized, there are marks/notes stating that they're in English, good practice.
2.2 Newsletter/site update notification option:
- Yes.
2.3 Feedback content:
- There are specific questions involved, far better than an open statement as "if you have any questions/suggestions, contact us at …".
2.4 Content update:
- The latest information is easy to reach.
2.5 Cultural customization:
- The site offers different version on each locale, with some customization.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- Consistent.
3.2 Frame functionality:
- Good.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Good.
4.2 Interactive functions:
- Good.
]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=91 Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:30:00 -0400 <![CDATA[EMC.com]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=90 Transco news, this review on EMC.com will be more concise than the previous ones.

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each locale:
- Using second-level domains for each locale.
1.2 Navigation:
- Weak but functionable.
1.3 Content coverage
- Generally, the content coverage is acceptable.
1.4 Overall content quality:
- Global version is rich in content. Localized quality is just average, leaving obvious bugs there in Asian versions.
1.5 Interactive features:
- There are Customer/partner communities, and different subscription options.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- There are some parts not localized/not fully localized. Seeing from Symantec, SAP, and EMC, we can know that it's common that suppliers require too much from their users, thus limit their products and services to limited users, out of strategy or out of intention. It's a common problem that everyone of us ignore it. Can we afford ignore it for life, in potential markets, for potential growth?
2.2 Newsletter/site update notification option:
- Quite good.
2.3 Feedback content:
- No specific questions for general feedback features found.
2.4 Content update:
- The latest information is easy to reach.
2.5 Cultural customization:
- The site offers different version on each locale, with some customization.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- Seems consistent? I'm expecting better frame from EMC.com, but the frames are flying I think. Casual style?
3.2 Frame functionality:
- So-so.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Not found.
4.2 Interactive functions:
- Good. ]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=90 Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:59:58 -0400 <![CDATA[Does Your Global Website Meet Your Global Demands - 2]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=88 Transco News. After the release, this column might display different.

When visiting Symantec website for a comparison with SAP.com, happen to find that the latest update to the website includes: global gateway design changed; "Rate this page" link changed on localized home pages and other pages (to "Print this page" on most pages); localization coverage: more content parts are localized, though simplified Chinese version quality is still not improved, and there is a link error; site search function improved.

That means Symantec is as serious as other companies for its global website, that their dedicated staff responsible for the global website is very smart ;-)


This time it's www.SAP.com. Its design is simple and clear, good style. It's higher than www.Symantec.com by page rank, and lower than Symantec.com by traffic rank (the two companies are not in the same trade, so the traffic ranks are not comparable). This time I'm using a relative standard, comparing SAP.com to Symantec.com. Anyone who would like a discussion, feel free to raise your comments or contact me at Elly@Transco.cn.

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each local site:
- Global domains. Some global domains registered, less than Symantec.com.
1.2 Navigation:
- On the whole, simple and clear. Better than Symantec.com.
- Global navigation. The design is simple and easy to reach.
1.3 Content coverage and overall content quality:
- Global version is rich in content. And localized version has better quality than Symantec.com.
1.4 Interactive features:
- Have different community groups, registration features, and one feedback option.

Overall, user experience of the whole site is better than Symantec.com.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- Estimated, there are more parts not localized than Symantec.com.
2.2 Newsletter/site update notification option:
- On the home pages of most countries/regions, there is an option for subscribing to SAP newsletters.
2.3 Feedback content:
- No specific questions for general feedback features.
2.4 Content update:
- The latest information is easy to reach, at each home page of every locale.
2.5 Cultural customization:
- The site offers different version on each locale, with some customization. Better than Symantec.com.

Generally speaking, the content of the whole site is clearer than Symantec.com.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- Better designed than Symantec.com.
3.2 Frame functionality:
- Quite nice.

On the whole, basic frame of the whole site is simple and strict.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Functions well in most locales, for most cases. No duplicate results found.
4.2 Interactive functions:
- Contact, feedback and communities function well.

Basically, function of search, contact, and feedback is quite good.

Conclusion or something like that

There is on one strategy fit for all. For a global website, first we need an overall globalization strategy, unified. Second, we need separate localization practice and cultural customization.

More for discussions

Personally, I always believe that for a global website, we need native editors who know the company's strategy and policy, to edit the localized content, to make it as nice as the global version, as designed. And the problem is, is it cost-effective to use dozens of editors to polish content for every locale. The dilemma is: on the one hand, there is a need for customization; and the other hand, is it worthwhile to invest too much in each locale. Hence the next dilemma: if no customization, the existing investment and efforts are not effective enough; if customize with large-scale efforts such as native editors from each locale, does a global website bring back enough revenue to cover the expenses? However, we need a decision to go on with, what's yours? Is there any way to solve it both efficient and effective? That is, the old saying in GILT industry, localization is not only translation. How far are you going beyond translation? ]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=88 Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:14:44 -0400 <![CDATA[When a Chinese Plug Meets US Sockets]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=86
From New York City, the DC, to San Francisco, my colleague despairingly looked for an adapter with which she may plug in and charge her Dell laptop PC. It's surprising somehow she found no such an adapter from any hotels she stayed and any depot she visited.

Finally, I ended her trouble by buying a US plug from Office Depot and manually made a special power cable for her laptop.

This can be a good story about why standard is so important for globalization. But the points I want to talk about herein might be more simple, but still interesting and meaningful as well:

Funny fact 1: A Dell branded laptop is not compatible with its homeland sockets.

My colleague, who's in charge of our localization projects for Dell as it happens, explained: this is a model that Dell particularly designed for Chinese market. While most plugs included with Dell products are compatible with both Chinese and US sockets, this is one of the few models that are not, because they are "localized" for China!

Globalization thought: Never assume the local users always use the products in a given local territory. Today the users are mobile than ever before. Consider globalization before localization - generally a globally compatible design is better than one specific to certain locale.

Funny fact 2: USA has the most extensive global presence (economically, politically, and militarily), but its domestic market is not so internationalized, regarding the plugs to the least.

If we had traveled in China with a US plug, we might have no compatibility issue because the universal sockets are widely used in China. These sockets accommodate a wide range of standards.

   


If we unfortunately find the sockets in the hotel rooms are not universal type, the hotel clerk will provide an adapter. If we are so unlucky that the hotel doesn't have a right adapter, we will go to the small grocery cross the street and get a universal adapter, probably like this:



Then we plug in and charge the laptop, regardless what brand and model it would be.

The above comparison reveals how open and adaptive today's China is. Probably, that's partially why China became an important part of global economy in just 20 years and intends to keep a high growth in the foreseeable future.

When you travel to China next time, observe whether the Chinese use universal sockets more than any people. In case you have compatibility issue with the plug and find getting an adapter is not so easy as I described, send me a message. I will be happy to send you one, free.

As always, I'd like to end this page by sharing one of my recent photos with you.


Hong Kong in evening mist, May 2006©
I was in need of an adapter when I traveled to Hong Kong last time. Then the hotel clerk surprised me by bringing up a dozen of adapters…
]]> Vic Dickson http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=86 Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:35:00 -0400 <![CDATA[On Technology - something not original]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=85 Happenly found, just want to share them with all:

1. Whether it is a turning point in societal evolution depends not only on the technology... but also how we use it! The web does give us lots more choices about how we organize ourselves.

- Tim Berners-Lee - World Wide Web Founder

2. Technology innovation is starting to explode and having open-source material out there really helps this explosion. You get students and researchers involved and you get people coming through and building start ups based on open source products.

- Tim Berners-Lee - World Wide Web Founder

It's the 1st time for me to quote, and quote the same author twice, if objections, let me know ;-) If more wanted, go to Tech Quotes or scribe a comment hereunder. ]]> Others http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=85 Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:16:00 -0400 <![CDATA[Does Your Global Website Meet Your Global Demands?]]> http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=84
I just select a site randomly, Symantec.com. It is ranking high both by page rank and by traffic rank. While nothing is perfect. Every global website has its award winning design, and has its problems. Here I use adjectives instead of exact evaluation. Anyone who disagrees with me, feel free for a discussion.

1. General user experience

1.1 Home pages of each local site:
- Global domains. Most of the domains, for each local market, are registered, and directed to the corresponding home pages.
- Quick feedback link not localized. The link "Rate this page", which aims to collect quick feedbacks from users, is not localized.
- "Global gateway" problems. The global navigation is over-designed, or in other words, conflicts with the localization strategy of the whole site. There are two pull-down gateways to worldwide sites, and there is a bottom link named "Global Sites". Mr. John Younker at Bytelevel is talking about the global gateways, and I quite agree with him on some points.
1.2 Navigation:
- Using the same navigation strategy in every local site, by design.
- Navigation is divided into three parts, head, middle and bottom links. As the first move to separate user needs, the navigation achieves its goal.
1.3 Overall content quality:
- Comparing with its 2005 version, the content is improved in Japanese and other Asian language.
1.4 Communication with site owner:
- It's a weak point for the whole site. We may call it interactive functions or something the like. It's vitally important for a global website that the visitors can reach customer support easily, find a link to raise their questions, or receive update alerts or the like.

Overall, user experience of the whole site is just average.

2. Content

2.1 Localization coverage:
- Some of the content is not fully localized, but directed to the main English site. This might be caused by low local demand, visitors' English reading ability, and limited time. However, over 60 percent of Internet users are non-English speakers. There might be limited percentage among them who prefers to read in English. No wonder that there is a continuously increasing demand for quick delivery.
2.2 Containing site update alerts:
- No (or not easy to find) localized subscription option, either for newsletters or alerts.
2.3 Feedback content:
- No specific questions for general feedback features.
- The "Rate this page" link which is mentioned above implements for this.
2.4 Content update:
- The latest information is easy to reach, at each home page of every locale.
- The latest updates are not fully localized. The same problem as in 2.1.
2.5 Cultural customization:
- Basically, the site offers different version on each locale, though no further polishing.

Generally speaking, the content of the whole site is above average.

3. Frame

3.1 Frame consistency:
- There are some frames not full accomplished due to localization process, or using different frames with other parts.
- There are some parts migrated from an older version, with different frames with the current version.
3.2 Frame functionality:
- Quite good.

Basic frame of the whole site is acceptable.

4. Function

4.1 Site search:
- Duplicate results. For example, search kanji "最新" (latest) in Japanese at the Japanese part
(http://www.symantec.com/ja/jp/index.jsp), the results returned appear to be duplicated, even tripled (refer to screenshot below). Personally I understand the problem since the URLs are different, and it’s far from easy to fix this problem.


Search kanji "最新" at http://www.symantec.com/ja/jp/index.jsp


Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese parts have the same problem.

4.2 Contact features:
- Not easy to find choices for quick contact.
4.3 Feedback function:
- Easy to reach.

Basically, function of search, contact, and feedback is weak. Site function, in other words, interactive features of the site are weak. And this has something to do with Symantec customer support policy...

Close but not conclusion

There are other factors, which determine a website's success, such as the success of the business itself. While, if we depend on the website for successful marketing or customer support, or both, we need to consider its success before its design, that is, its globalization/localization strategy, and whether its design will meet our global demands. ]]> Global Website Reviews http://www.betterlocalization.com/index.php?itemid=84 Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:06:00 -0400