LG 6-1: Improve text

[sippsack]

German and English translation differ and the learning goal should be more clear.

[dret]

6-1 reads to me like both versions are saying the same, but I probably have to say that as the one who did the translation.

In terms of "more clear", is there anything specific you have in mind? It seems to me that we're relatively clear in listing the concepts that should be taught.

[sippsack]

In German there is "know":

Teilnehmer:innen kennen verschiedene Schritte des Entwicklungszyklus eines API Produkts und die typischen Aufgaben, die bei diesen Schritten anfallen.

In English there is "understand":

Participants understand the various stages of the development cycle of an API product and the typical tasks that are performed throughout these stages.

[sippsack]

In the second paragraph there is also a distinction between know ("bekannt") and understand.

Die Aufteilung in Planung und Anforderungsanalyse, Design und Prototyping, Entwicklung, Testing und Qualitätsprüfung, Deployment und Veröffentlichung, Betrieb und Wartung sowie Verbesserung und Iteration sind bekannt.
Ebenfalls bekannt sind die verschiedenen Lebensphasen eines APIs wie Prototyp, produktiver Betrieb, Deprecation und das Abschalten.

vs.

Participants understand the various stages of planning, requirements analysis, design, prototyping, development, testing, quality assurance, deployment, publication, operations, and maintenance, and how to improve an API product in an iterative way.
Participants also now the different lifecycle stages of an API such as prototype, production, deprecation, and sunsetting.

There is a typo "now" -> "know"

[sippsack]

We have to decide if the have to know or to understand and equalise it (sorry for hair splitting). And let's translate it 1:1.

[dret]

Typo fixed, thanks.

In my mind, "know" and "understand" are close, but if you had to differentiate them, "understanding" is more because it involves some deeper insight beyond purely knowing certain things. If that's how you see things as well, should we "upgrade" to "understanding"/"verstehen"?

But to be honest, I am pretty sure that the terminology has been used pretty interchangeably throughout the curriculum. I do agree that trying to have accurate translations is a good thing. But I would find it hard to decide in which case to use "understand" and when to use "know".

And we still haven't approached your "the learning goal should be more clear" comment. Maybe the best way to resolve this is by you saying what specifically it is that you find unclear?

[sippsack]

With not clear I meant the difference between know and understand. And the different translation of the first sentence of the second paragraph. In English it seems to repeat the first paragraph, in German it looks different (even if it means the same).

I would suggest to decide if know or understand is the right terminology and then equalise German and English.

[dret]

To make things even more tricky the title of LZ 6-1 says "verstehen" but the text says "kennen". I wouldn't obsess over the difference, but if we want to sound a bit nicer then using "verstehen" in mind is the better word.

If we adjust the 6.1 German text, do you think or suggest we should do a complete pass of all learning goals and see where we use "verstehen" and where we use "kennen"? And maybe do the same for the English version? I would assume that the choice of words is mostly random between those two.

Currently (in the published RC), we have a very equal mix: 30 occurrences of "nennen" and 32 occurrences of "verstehen". In the English version we have 28 occurrences of "know" and 72 occurrences of "understand".

[dret]

Any comments/experiences how strict we should be with terminology, @programming-wolf?

[programming-wolf]

The strictness is only relevant in the foundation level, where you have the three levels of "being able to do something", "understand something", and "knowing that something like this exists".

I'm happy with anything you choose as long as you think it is fitting in your context, i.e. in every learning goal. The translation can be a bit vague or differ in the choice of terms. Make it sound natural.

[sippsack]

So if the strictness is only relevant in the foundation level, let's just leave it at it is. I merged the fixed typo and we close this issue for now.