Choosing what to translate

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

Our neighbourhood festival offered to print its programme in a second language. The first draft translated the organisers’ welcome but left the directions and booking instructions on a separate English page. A volunteer asked what a new visitor would need before arriving, rather than what looked most impressive beside the festival logo.

We moved the arrival information to the front and asked a fluent reader to check the revised wording. Some performer names stayed as the performers wrote them. The programme could not explain every event in equal detail within its few pages. We chose practical information first and gave a contact for further questions, accepting that a translated greeting alone would not make attendance straightforward.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The sports club wanted to welcome new families through a bilingual leaflet. Its committee initially gave most space to the club’s history. A parent who had recently joined said that she had needed to know which session suited her child and where to wait during practice. Those details appeared only in the original-language version.

The committee shortened the history and placed session choices and waiting arrangements in both languages. Another parent read the draft to check whether the instructions were understandable. Team names remained unchanged, and the leaflet listed somebody families could ask about details it could not fit. The aim became helping people take the first practical step, rather than displaying the same welcome twice.

Both texts describe the decisions about making information available in another language.

What similarities do the decisions about making information available in another language share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.