Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It has a remarkably inconspicuous language selector, also using the names of countries rather than languages, located in the page footer. Compared to Dyson, Apple's list of country names is much more willing to use English in preference to whatever someone from that country would call it. This isn't consistent; many countries are rendered in their own language (日本 / Ελλάδα) and many aren't (Georgia / Kazakhstan).

The page defaults to the locale that you request in the URL. https://www.apple.com/ shows up in English, regardless of your country;† https://www.apple.com/bg/ shows up in Bulgarian. Switching your preferred location simply takes you to the page for that location. (Dyson does the same thing.) Some locations support more than one language; there's https://www.apple.com/lae/ for Latin America (English) and https://www.apple.com/la/ for Latin America (Spanish). If you're on the page for a location like this, a language selector (with language names) displays next to the location selector. In the case of Latin America, only two languages are supported, and the language selector automatically displays "Español" if you're on the English site and "English" if you're on the Spanish site, which makes sense but won't generalize.

Apple's selector is inconspicuous because it refuses to display flags, which I would guess is due to much higher political exposure than Dyson. So it's lower-quality in two ways, but fundamentally the same approach. The user asks for a language, and the site honors that.

Given that I presented Dyson as an example of doing language selection correctly, I'm confused about what you wanted me to see on apple.com. They're trying to do the right thing, but less effectively.

† I tested this by accessing the site(s) from Mongolia, Vietnam, and Morocco using ExpressVPN.



That was my point. Not comparing Apple/Dyson/whatever, but showing that website do have this need.

If this was designed and implemented as a standard at the browser level, we would get something better in the end, rather than re-implementations on each and every website.


No, you wouldn't. Having it done by the browser means it sucks. That is a very, very, very bad idea. You need to do it on the website.


Sure, if that suits you...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: