How local is your local Microsoft Dynamics?

I still do not have my settings right to get informed on any changes on PartnerSource. Luckily, however, I am having a network that every now and then does the job for me. So what's up, Doc? Have a look here. MS is asking us to give "feedback on the linguistic quality of your local product". Not sure if I was one of the triggers to this (of course I would like to think I was Geeked), but sure enough it's a good opportunity to help MS understand how we think about this.

Call for Action

Should I say more? Of course I should: typically this survey is addressing the overall satisfaction and does not very well in nuances.

Thanx Peter. Beer Thanx Jan.Music


  • I am not sure if also is possible to access this through CustomerSource. Any of you?
  • Still I cannot get used to the fact that MS considers localization a lingusitic matter (only).
  • uff hit the wrong key - continuing my previous post...

    Here an interesting case appears - WHY include some absolutely neccessary functionality in given localisation (read - get paid ONCE fir the job), if it can be sold as CUSTOMISATION to each & every new customer?

    This way, the "localising" partner gets a guaranteed cash flow with minimal effort, reselling the same product with no additional expenses except the initial develoment of so named "customisation"...

  • Luc,

    Code changes & additions is even more important than interface language. It's obvious, that accounting rules differ, it was a case while Navision's target was an "European" user, now becoming a worldwide ERP system, it's far more difficult to squeeze into it functionality that suits everyone.

    What suprises me most, is the MS attitude to necessity of this or another functional change pr addition - how do they determine what should be included in some local version?

    Just some examples - we had to wait for "prepayment" for almost 10 years and got it in W1 standart at last, while not all countries really practice such schema, but another one - Client and Vendor as same company and payments balancing with such company is included in Latvian localisation from v4, but is NOT in W1, although this problem arises to almost every user in all countries...

    I understand, that MS is not the one to blame, as localisations are developed by their affiliates in respective countries, or, for large nations, by respective national MS branch, although in many cases this "MS branch" actually is a national IT company with MS Partner status...

  • @Modris, good to learn these things from other languages. My reference is NLD which resembles English a lot, so I am quite satisfied apart from the issues I reported lately and even then: it's not really the grammar that bothers me in these cases but the fact that I am getting code changes (and as such a lot of things to check) which actually are unneeded.

    @Arend-Jan, thanx for helping this lazy guy. ;-)

  • It is possible to use RSS feeds to receive updates from PartnerSource.

    The article you are talking about showed in my RSS reader under the feed

  • AFAIK in the very beining Navision (even called then differently) was not multilingual, this was added later and seemingly thinking about English and similar languages - and here the problems begin.

    English grammar is relatively simple, and the method of concatenating several "pieces" of text forms grammatically correct messages. besides, such "pieces" can be reused in many places in different combinations - we did not measure then HDD capacities in TERAbytes, not even GIGAbytes, space used was essential, too.

    As result, my native Latvian localisation is terrible, sometimes even impossible to understand what is really meant in the message... Several times I had to switch to English to get the idea of some msg, and all Latvian users who understand English prefer to switch to English interface, thanks God it's "just one mouse click away" :)

    I can't give examples here in English, as it's grammar does not allow it, and Latvian understands maybe a dozen of DUG members only. In short, such concatenating of parts, and especially, "reuse" of them simply does not allow to construct grammatically correct expressions.