Programming and Programmer Languages: Beyond “Hello World”?

Interesting discussion (of old) on the StackExchange blog podcast about coding in other natural languages.

Other than English, that is.

So,should programming languages should be localized or not? The podcast mentions the case of Microsoft Excel’s Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) language, which was localized from US English (the source/target paradigm framing the discussion is revealing in itself). The practice was not continued. I should disclose I was a Microsoft employee at the time. I should also disclose that I have no clue as to why the decision was made and then reversed. Perhaps someone can enlighten us? It is not the only language that Microsoft localized by the way. WordBasic, the Word for Windows forerunner to VBA was also localized into a number of major languages. Pretty much all trace of these localization initiatives appear to have been scrubbed from memory and Internet alike.

german_wordbasic

German localization of Microsoft WordBasic: Whatever were they thinking? (Source)

Given the expense, effort and care we see in localizing UIs and documentation, I do wonder though why some programming or scripting language functions and names are not localized, particularly the visual ones used in language-sensitive countries, regions or markets, or by particular types of end users of software.

A matter of user experience I expect, though from a technical and business perspective it is easy to see how English language-based programming facilitates open source, open standards and global development efforts. What a pain it would be to have to learn say, French as well as the Java language!

Wikipedia has a list of Non-English-based programming languages, by the way.

As for the thought that all programmers need to speak English (and American English at that), or at least English to some level, there is a lot of energy from within the development community itself on the subject (all of it in favor of English, no surprise). Check out this somewhat unappealing titled Ugly American Programmer piece on the Coding Horror blog for a start.

Some think developers themselves are part of the problem, perpetrating a myth about not speaking English well. Others say it’s essential for developers have functional English to be a “hacker”, others say English is mandatory because programming languages aren’t localized, and others posit that a lack of English betrays a lack of passion and interest in technology generally. Some have even turned developers grappling with English into an whole comedy act on Twitter (@devops_borat).

Read into it. Make up your own mind. But consider this: English is clearly the lingua franca of programming. But what about all that information around the language itself: The documentation, the community forums, the support organizations, the development conferences, and the customers for developed applications? And, does not speaking or reading English play so well with the stakeholders and ecosystem that surrounds software development?

How often have we, as localization professionals, heard the claim that “Oh, we’re not localizing that UI/demo/developmentguide because developers/administrators/technicians all speak English anyway”?

But, do we even have the research to back up the argument either way?

Opinions, Business, and Chicken Sandwiches

I have enjoyed Terena Bell’s “Macro/Micro” column in MultiLingual. She is usually spot  on with her insights, and her sense of self-deprecating humor is refreshing. I do find, however, her most recent column in the January/February 2013 issue of MultiLingual — “The polarizing business of opinion” — to be missing the point of the Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A controversy.

Bell takes a look at Cathy’s comments on gay marriage that were quoted in The Baptist Press in July 2012. Cathy was quoted “as being personally against gay marriage for religious reasons” (p. 23). Cathy is the owner of Chick-fil-A, a quick-service chicken restaurant with, according to Wikipedia, 1,679 locations in 38 US states and the District of Columbia, as of November 2012. As a result of Cathy’s comments, his business became the battleground for those supporting gay marriage as well as those who agreed with him.

Bell takes a look at the controversy and concludes that “Cathy didn’t make the mistake of having an opinion, but he did make the mistake of voicing it” (p. 24). As a business owner herself, Bell confesses that “it never dawned on me that owning a business would mean I one day would be unentitled to voice my opinion” (p. 24).

The nature of opinions

Bell’s article contains a subtext that skirts around the issue of opinions. We’ve all heard the aphorism, or a variation of it, that “opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and it usually stinks.” This expression has been around for a long time, and it was made popular when spoken by the Clint Eastwood character Harry Callahan in The Dead Pool (1988).

Harlen Ellison, a prolific writer of speculative fiction, says this about opinions: “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

Yes, Bell is “entitled” to her opinions, and, yes, everyone has opinions, even President Obama. Did he have to give up his opinions when he became the chief officer of the United States? Hardly, but hopefully he is intelligent enough to realize that stating one’s opinions might have consequences.

But Bell owns a business, and it does business with clients who also have opinions. If Bell makes her opinions known, it just might impact folks who hold opinions opposite of hers. A loss of business revenue could be the result of Bell making her opinions public. So, Cathy should not have been surprised that Chick-fil-A might have its chicken sales impacted — either positively or negatively — with the voicing of his opinions.

The politics of opinions

But this isn’t really the issue. Bell even admits that “we both know, dear reader, that this has nothing to do with a chicken sandwich” (p. 23). She is so correct, but she doesn’t follow to where this tail is connected.

Chick-fil-A has a charitable arm — the WinShape Foundation —  through which, according to Courtney Hodrick in her article “All the Anti Gay Companies You Fund When You Spend $5.25 On a Chick-fil-A Sandwich,” “Cathy gave almost $2 million to anti-gay organizations” in 2010.

Some of the organizations receiving funding from the WinShape Foundation are the Georgia Family Council, which supports legislation to ban gay marriage; the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center added to its list of hate groups in 2010; and Exodus International, “one of the most famous proponents of ‘Ex Gay’ therapy, seeking to cure homosexuality like a disease,” according to Hodrick.

Bell confesses, “I love Chick-fil-A. I’ll admit it. I have to drive, which I don’t do often, to get to one of the restaurants, so when I do, I stockpile” (p. 23). So, every time that Bell wraps her lips around “the tastiest chicken sandwich known to man” (p. 23), she is supporting many anti-gay organizations with each $5.25 she plops down to support her Chick-fil-A addiction.

Bell owns a translation company in Kentucky called In Every Language. If I were a potential client and if I found out that Bell were to contribute a certain percentage of her revenue to anti-gay groups or other hate-promoting organizations, I would certainly take my translation business elsewhere. Sorry, Bell, I would not be buying translation from you “because we’re good at it” (p. 25). In Every Language could be the best translation company this side of Uranus, and I still wouldn’t give it a cent of my translation business. It is, after all, not about the product; it is about where the money goes after it leaves my hands!

As always, follow the money. The $5.25 for a Chick-fil-A sandwich has moved beyond the realm of mere opinion and into the realm of power, decision-making, and laws of the land.

On the other hand, there is an upside to Cathy’s position on gay marriage. According to an article in The New Yorker, “in August [2012], hundreds of thousands across the country lined up to buy chicken sandwiches in support of Chick-fil-A, whose nonprofit foundations has given millions of dollars to anti-gay groups” (p. 46). It is not surprising that Cathy found support across the country for his position on gay marriage. According to Kelly Boggs in “First-Person: Dan Cathy’s views are in the majority,” “based on the ballot box, a significant majority of Americans agree with Cathy. To date, 32 states have voted on the issue, and by an average margin of 67-33 percent, Americans in those states have said marriage is between only a man and a woman.” It is interesting, though, that they showed support with their pocket books, by purchasing sandwiches. They now knew where a part of their $5.25 was going.

The responsibility of opinions

Bell’s sympathies go out to the “local franchisee who really wound up facing the brunt of this mistake . . . who was seeing a rise or decline in his own profits based on the religious beliefs of a man he’d never met” (p. 25). If I were that local franchisee, I’d be angry at Cathy for being totally irresponsible and for not being aware of the potential consequences of his vocal actions.

I don’t know how many people Bell employs at In Every Language, but I hope that she has the good sense to be aware of the position that she is in as CEO. With  position and power comes responsibility, particularly responsibility to the individuals whose livelihoods depend upon her good judgment.

The politics of business

I live in Sandpoint, Idaho, and a local realtor states in print ads that his realty company “is pleased to sponsor our local Habitat for Humanity.” I did not know this when I bought my house from his company, but it makes me feel good to know that a part of my money went towards the local Habitat for Humanity. In a round-about way, I was helping the general good.

Now, why did the local realtor make this public? The bottom line is that it is good business. The fact is that his company sponsors a local branch of a nationwide organization doing good to improve the quality of life for fellow citizens. He and his company care about life in northern Idaho; they are involved in community development, not just about making a dollar.

Yes, this realtor has an opinion, but his opinion moved to another level with the publication of his sponsorship of the local Habitat for Humanity. Of course, this is a risky business move. There might be some folks “out there” who are against Habitat for Humanity and don’t believe in its mission. Cool, then they can take their business elsewhere, and knowing this realtor as well as I do, I imagine that he wouldn’t want to do business with such folks in the first place!

Conclusion

Bell’s “The polarizing business of opinion” only scratches the surface about the issues raised by the Chick-fil-A controversy. The real issue is not about opinions or having business owners holding their tongues. It is about the more fundamental issues of the consequences of voicing one’s opinions; it is about following the money trail and seeing where the money spent on a product ends up.

As my Mother, who is now 100 years old, stills says, “Keep your opinions to yourself.” Her advice should be heeded now more than ever.

 

References

Bell, Terena. “The polarizing business of opinion.” MultiLingual, January/February 2013, 23-25.

Blume, K. Allan. “‘Guilty as Charged,’ Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical & family values.” www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=38271

Boggs, Kelly. “First-Person: Dan Cathy’s views are in the majority.” www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=38316

“Chick-Fil-A’s Anti-Gay donations Totaled Nearly $2 Million In 2010: Report.” www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html

Hodrick, Courtney. “All the Anti Gay Companies You Fund When You Spend $5.25 On a Chick-fil-A Sandwich.” www.Policymic.com/articles/12219/all-the-anti-gay-companies-you-fund-when-you-spend-5-25-on-a-chick-fil-a-sandwich

Ross, Alex. “Love on the March.” The New Yorker, 12 November, 2012, 44-53.

Another UX and L10n Best Practice from Mozilla: Gaia

Here’s a great example of how localization was considered by a user experience (UX) team during the design phase.  The Mozilla team enabled higher levels of localization (or L20N) by calling for a localizability review of the user interface (UI) wireframes for the Mozilla Gaia (UI for the Firefox mobile OS) apps.

Help us review the wireframes for Boot to Gecko/Gaia
apps and flag potential localizability problems.

Nicely put. Take a look at the designs under the Apps section. For example, the Gaia Calendar app interaction wireframe.

The review responses on the Google Group forum also offer interesting insights into how language constructions need to be accommodated by software design too.

Making efficient use of language professionals as stakeholders during design and development can identify potential L10n or i18n issues upfront before a single line of code is written, reducing cost of iteration and fixes later.

Working together using simple tools to communicate, an inspiration for us all.  Another L10n and UX best practice from the community.

Happy New Year, everyone!

Icons: Global UX Considerations Revisited and Translators without Borders

I previously raised the issue of how context of use influences our perceptions of icons, and how globalization “best practices” and guidance about icons and graphics that we read on the web sometimes discounts context to the detriment of user experience.

One great example is the use of the Facebook Like icon.

Facebook 'Like' Button. A Thumbs Up to Global Cultural Design Considerations?

Facebook ‘Like’ Button. A Thumbs Up to Global Cultural Design Considerations?

Usually, we would be told to run a mile from body parts like this from a global design perspective, although the use of a thumbs up or thumbs down icon is frequently encountered in social media applications to indicate positive or negative user reactions to a subject.

Now, research from the Oracle Applications User Experience team, presented at the Oracle Usability Advisory Board meeting in Europe recently, confirms that use of the thumbs up and down icon, and some emotions (smileys to indicate happy or sad emotions) not traditionally associated with enterprise applications design, is acceptable to the vast majority of users, worldwide.

The pervasive, global use of the Internet and social media applications (Facebook in particular I would guess) and the nature of work and enterprise applications use (English as a language of business, globalization and outsourcing of work, multilingual operations, less distinction between personal and work life and technology, and so on) have influenced this acceptance.

You can probably think of other icons that might now be acceptable in places that a few years ago would not have been. Find the comments…

That said, the message from the research is clear: Don’t make assumptions about users or global markets. Research and test with real users in real situations doing real tasks. And do it again… and again… and again…. in real target markets, globally. It’s not hard.

On a related note, I love these clean water icons by way of the Noun Project (@nounproject).

Latrine clean water icon from The Noun Project Iconathon.

Latrine clean water icon from The Noun Project Iconathon. Image referenced from Flickr.

An excellent example of iconic context of use, they remind us of the importance of being able to clearly communicate development-related and health-critical information to those who need it, and volunteering where you can to make life better for everyone.

On that point, why not do something extra nice for Christmas, or the season that’s in it if you prefer, and support the Translators without Borders program.

Happy Christmas all!

So, Not Enough Basque (Euskara) Understanding?

Spanish-related topics are always hot, and not just in Europe. Catalonian separation, economic turmoil, my eight-year old sporting a Barcelona football (soccer) shirt, it’s all happening.  Besides current events in the news, Spain itself is a country rich in history, culture, with a weighty past and present world influence, and a territory that offers language professionals and hobbyists plenty of scope for exploration and discussion.

One of the languages from that region, Basque (known as Euskara), just doesn’t seem to get enough coverage, in my opinion. Perhaps that’s because I worked briefly on a Basque localization project (for an early version of Microsoft Office as it happens) or because as an Irish person I feel some affinity for the Basque people, and how their culture and language fares as a coexistence project alongside with other, bigger European entities. Maybe it’s because the Basque language–Latin character-based and all as it is–just looks so intriguing when viewed beside other languages! Regardless, I think we’re missing out on something great by this omission of coverage.

Basque manual alphabet referenced from WikiPedia

Basque language alphabet manual referenced from WikiPedia

So, let’s all explore the Basque language a little more, and see what lessons it holds for other language isolates or minor languages, their promotion, their adoption and usage, as well as how such languages play out on a bigger stage.

Thankfully, Moravia have done a fine job in helping us along the road to more understanding with their eye-catchingly titled blog post Did the aliens plant the Basque language? I learned a lot from that, and I know you will too, so check it out!

If you have other Basque language or culture-related sources, then add them to the comments.