Comments on: Localization Testing: Part 1

By: testingmentor

testingmentor — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:12:03 +0000

Hi Anuj,

Absolutely agree. Testing is a partnership with those on our team. No need to build a brick wall or have an adversarial attitude.

By: Anuj Magazine

Anuj Magazine — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:01:48 +0000

Hi BJ,
I could not agree more when you say-
“Stop wasting the time of your test team to validate the linguistic quality of the product.”
I have seen in my experience that a tester may be inclined to report such an issue (without the knowledge of language) but this has more serious repercussions than the bug being marked as won’t fix. It really puts the relationship of the tester with the language expert (who translated the string) in a jeopardy.

Regards,
Anuj
http://anujmagazine.blogspot.com

By: testingmentor

testingmentor — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:42:15 +0000

Hi Rikard,

Spot on! Over-localization of strings that should not have been localized is indeed something that could lead to functionality problems.

Fortunately, the maturation of our pseudo-localization processes have largely reduced this and other problems.

But, it is still something we must test for.

Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:33 AM by I.M.Testy

By: rikard_edgren

rikard_edgren — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:40:11 +0000

This goes well in line with my experiences from Nordic versions of Microsoft software; and localizations of my current company.

You also have the functionality bugs that depend on over-localization; a string was localized, but it shouldn’t have been.

This is best addressed by not making it possible to localize that string, but mistakes are made, and depending on globalization technique, you just might have to make sure that it isn’t localized.

Virtually any type of functionality can break due to this (even installers if arguments are localized…)

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:19 AM by rikard_edgren