Recent Changes - Search:






Working Group







Methodologies: The Layercake and Ecology Models

(Presentation by Don Osborn, download the presentation file here)

Note: This page is based on notes taken during the presentation and may contain errors and unintended misrepresentations of the speaker's statements. Please download the original presentation!

The presentation covered two ways of looking at localisation, the layercake model, and the localisation ecology model. Localisation has many meanings, including adapting ICT to the realities of culture.

Each localisation project has different independent and interdependent parts - the relationship between these parts can be seen as an ecology.

Some example for how the PLETES model be applied:

  • to consider how different policies consider different aspects of the whole spectrum (we looked specifically at the examples of technology policy vs. language policy);
  • it can be used to map specialisations of the people in this workshop - where do the participants fit into the pletes model?

How do the layercake and the pletes model relate to each other:

  • PLETES: large dynamics outside of the usual focus of localisation;
  • Layercake: within the technical areas it is important to look at the factors that affect localisation.

Comments / Questions:

Amar (comment about layercake model): this model covers localisation, but it would be good to also consider end-user training and content. What happens is that we localise applications (the ones "we" think are useful to the users, which might not necessarily be true). "Applications are just a medium to create and access content."

Paa Kwesi: Would it be possible to subsume the layercake model into the technology aspect of the pletes model?

Don: A problem with a model like PLETES is that it is a huge simplification and it can be unpacked in many different ways.

Dawit: When Daniel developed the layercake, he wanted to show to those who are interested in hands-on technical localisation project, what are the aspects that are part of such technical work. It is mainly relevant to technical audiences. It is important however, because it addresses one of the major problems that exist specifically in the technical community.

Reinhard: Another model that we use contains three steps. (1) Enabling means that anybody can use any application (an enabled application in their own language). So, the application is English, but it has been enabled for me to use my language. Enablement concerns keyboards and locale etc - although the interface might still be in another language than my own. (2) Internationalisation means an application or content is enabled and it is easy to localise. Sometimes content / application has been developed, but cannot be localised (proprietary software, etc.). (3) Localisation then is the last step, you take take content and translate it and adapt it culturally. At each of those steps you need different guidelines, you need different technologies, you need different people.

Reinhard: To build a layercake model is a good idea, but it needs to be worked on. The problem is that you mainly see what you are mainly involved in. So, other aspects that are missing are internationalisation, localisation - the layercake model was probably developed by someone involved in the enabling part.

Paa Kwesi: In reality most of us don't have the possibility to make some of the connections that are visible in the PLETES model. For example, we hope that somebody will address the policies. And sometimes that is good. If one is working on the technology side, then I don't need to worry about the work of the linguistics - those working on technology want a clear separation and rather build tools that the others can then use flexibly as their needs change.

< 2/24 #1 IDRC Perspective | Agenda | 2/24 #3 PAN L10n (Asia) >

Page last modified on 2015-10-16 11:07