Dear David It wouldn't really make sense to add a dependency on a third party translation service straight into the aur. As this would mean loading 3rd party translation scripts for all users of the aur, not just the people in need of it. I would rather recommend the people in need of translation, to use the translation included in their browser or to use a translation app on their phone to translate the image of the camera input. Of course this isn't really a perfect solution, a real solution would still be somehow storing actual human translations in the package info itself.
I also think that adding pictograms and/or "leichte Sprache" also would be a rabbit hole on it's own, because as of right know, I can't see children or illiterate people installing arch linux all by themselves. Kind regards Julian Houba (aka CraftingDragon007) On September 6, 2025 3:59:00 AM GMT+02:00, Ralf Mardorf <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, 2025-09-05 at 14:29 -0500, David C Rankin wrote: >> There has to be a clear separation between (1) making information >> available in other languages, a good thing, and (2) compromising >> security by having packages slip through that no one understands, a >> very, very bad thing. > >Maybe adding a translation widget to the AUR could help to workaround >this issue. > >My question: "how to add a translate this webpage widget" > >The answer of a search engine AI: "To add a "Translate this webpage" >widget to your website, you will need to generate an HTML code from a >third-party widget provider, such as Elfsight or the Google Cloud >Translation API for commercial sites, and then paste that code into the >desired location on your website's page using your content management >system (CMS) or theme editor. For non-commercial sites, you can explore >options like the browser extension or third-party solutions." > >I often find translations from English into my native language, German, >more difficult to understand than the English original when it comes to >computers. By this I mean that even the German word for something is a >new technical term that has to be learned and is initially very >difficult to understand even in my native language. Package descriptions >often refer to such technical terms, but are otherwise concise and >written in almost plain language [1]. It is probably more practical for >users to have package descriptions translated by one of the countless >translation AIs than to put together a team of multilingual moderators. > >If necessary, I sometimes use a single app in my native language. Off >the top of my head, I can think of situations in which I look up a >constellation whose name I might know from German folklore. However, if >I were to study astronomy in more depth, I would probably rely on >international English in this case as well. > >To come back to the package descriptions. I don't know how complicated >it is to add a “translate this webpage” widget to the AUR. But maybe >this would be an acceptable compromise. > >Much of the content related to computers is only partially translated >into other languages, e.g., the man pages. > >ma(n) d(e) = mad, mad = nuts ;) > >$ grep mad .bashrc >alias mad='LANG=de_DE.utf8 man' > >IMO man pages are more important than package descriptions. > >At first glance, English seems to be the best choice for concise package >descriptions. Accessibility for use is another issue altogether, >however. Just think of small children or illiterate people, for whom >pictograms are a good choice. > >[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_language >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leichte_Sprache
