As this section ends up being quite long, is there any way of having a 1-2 page summary or checklist of some kind that highlights the main steps/factors to take into account?
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Ken Whitaker
Jun 17, 2021
Approver
Just a question: Appears the idea is to produce one app that can be separately localized. I've seen some CR apps that allow languages to be selected by the child/teacher. I guess I thought the apps were unique to the language. And is the solution when the cultural/narration dynamics don't really allow one app + multiple language implementations? In that case, there would need to be an app per language?
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Sunita Grote
Jul 5, 2018
Approver
I wonder whether bringing in here concrete examples of different apps and how they addressed these factors would help make the directions more concrete and bring in real-life examples
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Assigned to
tgalyean@curiouslearning.org
Taylor
Jul 5, 2018
Approver
@tgalyean@curiouslearning.org we can add a section on the tradeoffs of localizability here, and maybe include case study of eduapp4syria, as per Liv's suggestion
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Assigned to tgalyean@curiouslearning.org
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Taylor
Jul 5, 2018
Approver
Liv: it belongs in the section around how to make these tools as available as possible; reference the digital development principles, UNICEF is one of the early signatories here
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Sunita Grote
Jul 5, 2018
Approver
Are most apps we are seeing out there really initiated and funded by public institutions? This doesnt quite apply in the same way to companies/investors that are in the gaming space. I would suggest making this a broader section about why open source is advantageous - there are arguments from the scaling/impact perspective but also from the company/business growth perspective. This would then speak to anyone who can incentivise to and then develop in the open.
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Taylor
Jul 9, 2018
Approver
emily: it might make sense to make the point, in order to encourage the ability to allow people to localize, that open source is linked to allowing people to localize.
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Taylor
Jul 9, 2018
Approver
non-localizable doesn't make sense -- not easily localizable, not planned for localization
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Taylor
Jul 9, 2018
Approver
where do these numbers come from
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
Tinsley Galyean
Aug 30, 2018
Approver
Did you create this graph? If so where is the source so that we can change the label from "Non-localizable" to "Not Easily Localizabile"
Somewhere in this document (here or elsewhere?) it would help to note that there are 7,117 living languages in the world: https://www.ethnologue.com/. The scope of the challenge is massive and nothing other than scalability via localizability/open source will work.
Suggestion was deleted
Show more
Show less
Comment details cannot be verified
0 replies
New
Taylor
Jul 5, 2018
Approver
use unesco statistics: 387 (?) million, 617M children and adolescents; may be overlap with children and adults; latest world development report, focuses on literacy and lack of mother tongue materials