Qala, click here to begin

Throughout SA there are various initiatives to produce local language versions of popular operating systems, based on the premise that first-time technology users will find systems more accessible if they can interact with them, at least in part, using their own language.

In recent weeks, the spotlight has fallen on the efforts of probably the best-known software development company in the world, to produce special versions of its desktop using a variety of indigenous South African languages.

To date, Microsoft has invested nine months of research and development in producing special language implementation packs for its Windows operating system.

Gordon Frazer, Microsoft SA MD, recently demonstrated examples of the special language desktops to the local business and software developer communities. "Part of ensuring greater access to technology involves removing language barriers," he said.

The most advanced versions of Microsoft`s language implementation packs for Windows are those for Afrikaans and Zulu. Microsoft SA hopes to have these completed by the year-end.

One can`t help feeling that in comparison with the various education and skills transfer initiatives, the development of local language desktop versions is misguided at best and a waste of valuable resources at worst.

Warwick Ashford, technology editor, ITWeb

Demonstrations at this week`s TechEd Microsoft developers` forum were the source of a great deal of mirth. Developers responded with loud guffaws when it was revealed that the "Go" button becomes "hamba" in the Zulu version and "gaan" in Afrikaans.

While Microsoft and some of its open source counterparts are to be admired for their commitment to narrowing the digital divide, one can`t help feeling that in comparison with the various education and skills transfer initiatives, the development of local language desktop versions is misguided at best and a waste of valuable resources at worst.

It may be amusing and appealing to be able to click buttons that say "Qala" instead of "Start", "Antwoord` instead of "Reply", "Funa instead of "Find", and "Loop" instead of "Run", but is it really useful?

This question reminds me of an experimental method of teaching reading and writing that was used in some South African schools in the 1970s. Instead of teaching children to read and write using standard spelling and writing rules, a phonetic spelling method with its own unique letters was used.

Once the children had mastered this supposedly easier phonetic method of reading and writing, they were introduced to the standard system. Unfortunately, for some, the transition was far from smooth. They found it difficult to unlearn one set of symbols and replace them with another. Thankfully this teaching approach was soon abandoned.

It really makes no sense for a child to learn one way of doing something, when in order to function in the real world, another way of doing things is required. Similarly, it seems to make little sense for people to learn how to interact with computers in one way, when the rest of the world uses a different way.

The 1970s reading experiment showed children had difficulty adapting to standard methods of writing and spelling because of their initial exposure to something similar, but different. It follows that people exposed to local language versions of desktops may find it difficult to adapt when they are forced to use the standard version.

It may then be argued, that instead of being any help, initial exposure to non-English versions of desktops may quite easily become a disadvantage when users are confronted with computers that do not have customised desktops.

Can it really be easier to learn the function of the "Start" button if it is called "Qala"? Is there really any point to having an own language desktop when just about every other bit of software a user is likely to encounter requires interaction in English?

Before software developers spend any more time and money on developing non-English desktops, they need to get real about the modern world.

Getting real about special language projects means acknowledging the predominance of English interaction software and the de facto establishment of English as the international language of business.

I would agree that access does not guarantee accessibility, which means that while improving access to technology is vitally important, it is not enough on its own. However, I am not convinced that special language editions of operating systems will improve accessibility to any real degree.

I would argue that the time, effort and money used on developing non-English versions of desktops would be better spent on empowering new technology users to derive the maximum possible benefit from using that technology.

Surely it is better to know how to use the functionality built into standard computer desktops to be found throughout the world, than be able to recognise a button has a particular functionality without being able to use it.

I can easily understand how an own language version of a desktop would be a "nice to have", but it is difficult to believe that it will be an effective tool in narrowing the digital divide or that it is a sound long-term strategy.