Here are the corresponding lines in "de.po": 794 #: ../settings-dialogs/xfwm4-tweaks-dialog.glade.h:44 795 msgid "_Minimum size of windows to trigger smart placement:" 796 msgstr "M_inimale Größe, unterhalb derer Fenster intelligent platziert werden:" 1. Effect of the slider's position: Only windows with size above the value configured via the slider are considered by the smart placement feature. 2. Meaning of the english text: The english text describes the behaviour correctly. 3. Meaning of the german text: Windows smaller than the configured (minimum) size are considered by the smart placement feature. A german user who wants more windows to be smart placed will configure a small size via the slider. This has the opposite effect. The user could consider the feature broken. A simple solution would be to replace "unterhalb" (below) with "oberhalb" (above).
Reassigning to German translator(s). Can you have a look, I'm not sure this still still applies against 4.8 and master because it was reported against 4.6. Thank you, Mike
It still applies in 4.8.
did you look at the source code? smart placement is meant for small interfaces to fill in available room. it's not a meaningful idea to smart-place your browser, you would mostly want it centered on your desktop. so did you really try? I did, and it behaves as translated: I start a 80x25 character urxvt terminal, which is only placed smart if the threshold is sufficiently small or set to zero, the left-hand side. this really makes sense because smart placement is not an idea for "large" GUI applications auch as browsers and email clients but only to fill in available room. There are two additional options which might have confused you though: for trying out the above-described scenario, I set to "set to middle by default", however, the behaviour varies very much when setting to "follow mouse cursor". the English text is written by a French programmer, so never trust the English text but only the soruce code and the behaviour you found out. You can test more and file a bug report against the orginal string and add a more meaningful tooltip explanation, though. I know that the behaviour that the zero value enables completely is hard to understand, tofind out and poorly documented. For such questions, please use the xfce user list or the German translation team, not bugzilla, which is for real bugs. Also, translators are mostly listed top of the po files (those who only use transifex for translating are not, but that's thei own fault).
I have reassigned the bug so a translator can take a look and fix the translation. I'm not fluent with german as a much as a native german :)
Git master has currently the following translation: "M_indestgröße zur intelligenten Fensterplatzierung:" http://git.xfce.org/xfce/xfwm4/commit/?id=3df7ac04b7f70a89c89bb8451f25a6a06ecb58ff I have put it in the Xfce 4.8 branch as well. Marking as FIXED.
(In reply to comment #0) > Here are the corresponding lines in "de.po": > > 794 #: ../settings-dialogs/xfwm4-tweaks-dialog.glade.h:44 > 795 msgid "_Minimum size of windows to trigger smart placement:" > 796 msgstr "M_inimale Größe, unterhalb derer Fenster intelligent platziert > werden:" > > 1. Effect of the slider's position: > Only windows with size above the value configured via the slider are considered > by the smart placement feature. Gee, you're right. So as described, then actually the implementation is wrong. While Mike's citation already follows your approach, could you please turn towards the author whether they really think it is important to smart-place large apps in contrast to small terminals? > > 2. Meaning of the english text: > The english text describes the behaviour correctly. But too short, actually. > > 3. Meaning of the german text: > Windows smaller than the configured (minimum) size are considered by the smart > placement feature. > > > A german user who wants more windows to be smart placed will configure a small > size via the slider. This has the opposite effect. The user could consider the > feature broken. > > A simple solution would be to replace "unterhalb" (below) with "oberhalb" > (above).