Tue, Aug 14
Wed, Aug 8
I think it make sense for the UI to make good use of the available space, but that should not be the only goal to consider.
Grouping elements visually helps to communicate how they are related, which helps users to use them and avoids accidents. For example, marking everything as red cannot be undone, and placing it with no label next to the refresh action may be problematic. It makes more sense for "Live updates", which represents a continuous refresh to be near the refresh action.
We explored several options in T177206#4266985
Tue, Aug 7
From recent conversations, it seems that the new version of Content Translation, even if it is not possible to find the equivalent template is not generating the useless markup mentioned in the description.
I checked this in production for version 2, and it works as expected: all instances of , rendered as "".
Mon, Aug 6
The issue seems to be solved in the new version of Content Translation. Users can try the new version as described in the previous link, and soon will become more widely available.
Is this related to T200761: CX2: Guidance for inline templates with unnamed parameters?
This is working on the new version of Content Translation. So we can close this ticket.
The comments are shown in the in-progress translation when restoring a saved translation. They are also present in the published translation.
This is a limitation of the tool that we plan to solve in T86151: Allow different users to translate the same topic independently.
Since this requires a significant change in the data models, we'll focus on it only after completing the work on the next version of Content Translation.
This issue was causing confusion to a user based on this conversation.
Most of the infrastructure work for template adaptation has been completed, and the remaining task has now a separate follow-up ticket: T192271: CX2: Communicate template could not be adapted
Fri, Aug 3
My guess is that this was translated using Apertium (not sure since the screenshot is cropped), which does not support rich text. In these cases, an algorithm is in charge of re-applying the formatting to the plain text that Apertium returns, but it may get confused in some cases.
Thu, Aug 2
When a section is blanked using 'Do not use MT', we consider the content to be the user creation so it should be counted as manual content. Not showing MT warning for the paragraph, and contributing to the percentage of manual modifications for the overall progress calculation.
If the restored translation has validations errors(MT abuse errors), we should show them immediately after restore.
When you continue a translation you want to continue the work that was done, and having the elements that need improvement visible from the very beginning is helpful to understand the current status and what to improve. I''d say that this applies to all kinds of warnings, including "unmodified MT sections" that the user added and forgot to edit further in the last session (is good to remind from the beginning that work is pending since the last session), and "user translations with unmodified content above threshold" (is good to reming that further edits are needed).
Thanks for the details, @ssastry. I'm happy to hear this seems a valid usecase. We'll be very interested in hearing about any work considered for this area in the future. So do not hesitate to ping us when the time comes.
Wed, Aug 1
Even though using the source text is not machine translation, we still want to control that users edit the content enough. The new message proposed for the warning (T200768) makes the connection a bit more clear: "Your translation contains X% of unmodified text" can work for both MT and source.
Content Translation version 2 provides support for removing, editing and exploring references as indicated in the description.
As we improve the support for duplicated references, we may want to check if T113564: Automatically merge duplicate references in ContentTranslation gets resolved too.