LDS Maps is now live in 16 languages! The site should detect the browser language automatically, or if you want to poke around, there is a language selector at the bottom of the screen. Most of the work for this minor release was on the dev and translation teams, but props are due to Aaron Barker for helping define a new standard for language selection and Rob Foster for the soon-to-be-universal (?) language icon.
Update: Larry Richman provides some additional info about the release, including how to link to a specific language-version of the site.
11 comments
Technically speaking, the first “The” in the name of the Church is supposed to be capitalized. And I like the fact that there’s at least one other option in addition to Google maps to use.
comment by Christian 28 minutes later
Good editorial catch. I assume you’re referring to the “Worship With Us” section. I’ll pass it on. The Microsoft option has been there since we released last summer. Switching between map providers and between satellite and road views can make a huge difference in map quality in some areas.
comment by Ted Boren 42 minutes later
Yes, in the “Worship With Us” section. And sometimes I get a little antsy when it looks like Google is taking over the world, especially when many of their services are copies of other company’s existing services. I do use Google services for some things but I like to mix it up a little and use things from other companies too and think that’s a healthy attitude for everyone to take.
comment by Christian about an hour later
As a former Microsoft employee, I have to say that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that logic applied to anybody other than… Microsoft! For me it’s strictly practical. Sometimes Google has better data, sometimes Microsoft does. Folks who decide on an ideological basis to “never use Company X, just on principle” are simply shooting themselves in the foot. I like your approach of mixing things up. It gives you a better chance of really finding out what works best, instead of relying just on what’s hip or established.
comment by Ted Boren about an hour later
Just curious what the new language selection standard is, if you can divulge? Would there be any case where Yahoo! Maps covers something MS or Google don’t? Yahoo! would be a potential third service provider to add, but I don’t know if it is worth it. Awesome work!
comment by Karl 5 hours later
I will let Aaron comment on the specifics of the new standard if he sees fit, but it has to do with how the languages are displayed and ordered in the dropdown, what’s selected by default, the use of the icon, etc. As to map vendors, the team periodically reviews the coverage offered by various providers. If there was a compelling reason, they could add a third vendor or swap one out if it no longer added value. (On the back-end we actually use a number of other providers for address matching, but Google and Microsoft are the two choices for map display, regardless of which service was used to match the address.)
comment by Ted Boren 5 hours later
“Just curious what the new language selection standard is, if you can divulge?”
There was a lot of research that went into this. I’ll write up an article and share all the details. Nothing to hide, happy to share.
comment by Aaron Barker 11 hours later
Karl, my thoughts exactly. I almost suggested adding Yahoo Maps in “just because.” It almost sounds though like Aaron knows a reason why they didn’t include it . . . for display at least.
On my Mexican food blog I include a Yahoo Map direction finder where the visitor only has to enter their starting address, click “Get Directions” and they get directions to the restaurant without having to enter the restaurant’s address. The blogger tool is already run by Google. Example:
http://ocmexfood.blogspot.com/2008/11/gabbis-new-desserts-3.html
Active Link
comment by Christian 13 hours later
This time Ted can respond with more detail (or correct me), but when adding additional mapping solutions there are a number of things to consider.
1 – Cost. We aren’t using the free accounts that they provide to the general public. We have contracts with the mapping solutions we use and so any additional service requires more money (tithing dollars). When the large majority of people won’t change from the default map, additional options become iffy as we don’t know if people will use them, but probably still have to pay for the potential (guessing here).
2 – Interface issues. 2.1 would be that the more services we add the more complex the choosing a service interface gets, and thus adding confusion to the user as to why are there all these choices. 2.2 would be that each of those services has different interfaces in the mapping controls and such. Again adding confusion to the users. Both of the above aren’t a big deal to the advanced user, but this is for the general populous who needs simplicity.
3 – Filesize. Each additional mapping service requires additional code (sometimes significant) which equals more download time. We need to keep in mind that everyone doesn’t have a nice fat pipe to download from.
4 – Coverage. As Ted alluded to above, we have multiple services mainly because they have coverage in different areas. Google may be better in Brazil and Microsoft may be better in Japan (just throwing out the concept not facts). Not that Yahoo (or any other service) isn’t better in a given area then others, but it’s the return on investment. Do we need to add all of the above issues (interface, download times etc) because provider X is better in 2% of the world (again fake numbers).
Those are just some quick thoughts from someone who was only casually acquainted with the project. I’m not sure that the above are the actual reasons, but they are ones I remember being in the discussions for at some point.
Ted can come in and correct, add to, or say I’m totally off base.
comment by Aaron Barker one day later
“populace” not “populous”
Signed,
The annoying grammar and spelling correcter
comment by Christian about a day later
Aaron is right on, especially the point that any additional vendors would have to offer significantly improved coverage to justify the monetary and UX costs. But it’s not out of the question; they’re evaluating that stuff all the time.
comment by Ted Boren about a day later
Comment preview
comment by you less than a minute ago