eduKate Singapore
Auto mode follows the Route Engine until you choose a viewpoint.
YOU ARE HERE
CONNECTED TO
WHAT NEXT
Use the canonical route for this room, or HELP if you are unsure.
USEFUL ROOMS IN THIS HUB
—
by
On this page
SVG diagram localization QA is the final proof that a translated educational graphic still teaches the same relationship. Translating SVG text, producing multilingual SVG labels and checking an accessible SVG description are different jobs from translating a paragraph. The graphic may contain arrows, axes, colour keys, grouped objects, labels anchored to specific coordinates and hidden accessibility names. A single misplaced word can make a correct sentence point at the wrong object.
Anyone searching for how to translate text in an SVG file, SVG accessibility title and desc localization, multilingual diagram testing or SVG text clipping QA is usually confronting that combination of language and geometry. An SVG is a structured visual document, not just an image. Some letters are live text, some are curves, some are imported as external pictures, and some are labels inserted by scripts. A translation workflow must find the actual visible and non-visible language surfaces before changing them.
This guide has one dominant reader job: accept or reject one target-language version of an SVG educational diagram against a locked source diagram. It does not duplicate a general translation tutorial, a beginner’s vector drawing lesson or an article about image-search optimisation. The workflow applies to classroom diagrams, graphs, science illustrations, mathematical constructions and knowledge graphics, with extra caution whenever the illustration carries a safety instruction or a tested answer.
An ordinary illustration can look attractive without transmitting an exact proposition. A teaching diagram is different. Its arrows, legends, labels, quantities and proximity form a set of statements. If an arrow labelled evaporation points from the sea toward a cloud, the graphic asserts something about movement. If the translated term is moved to an arrow that points downward, the graphic now appears to assert a different process. That is why language review alone cannot approve the asset.
The shortest reliable SVG localization QA workflow begins by freezing the original file and assigning a source version. Inventory every visible label, chart element, alt or accessible description and source-linked text object. Classify each as editable text, text converted to paths, embedded raster text, CSS or script-generated text, or metadata. Translate only the intended strings while preserving identifiers and drawing instructions. Render the source and target at several sizes. Compare each translated claim with its shape, then inspect the accessible name and description through an accessibility tree or equivalent assistive-technology test.
Approval should require three independent results: semantic equivalence, visual alignment and accessible equivalence. A fourth check verifies technical hygiene: the resulting SVG parses, no unexpected scripts or external links were introduced, assets load as expected and the delivery platform handles the SVG safely. Those results should be recorded separately. An SVG can pass technical validation but teach incorrect science. It can look correct while being inaccessible. It can have excellent accessible text while showing labels that overlap at mobile width.
Scalable Vector Graphics uses XML to describe shapes and text. A typical file may include paths for arrows, rectangles for containers, groups for meaningful regions, text and tspan elements for captions, a viewBox for its coordinate system and title or desc elements for accessible information. It may also use styles, links, fonts, clipped regions, masks, symbols and reused shapes. Each layer changes the kind of localization decision a reviewer must make.
text
tspan
viewBox
title
desc
Consider a science graphic showing three stages of an experiment. An editor sees the word “Collect” beneath the third jar and replaces it with a longer translation. The original <text> element uses a fixed x coordinate near the image edge. Unlike ordinary web text, the SVG does not necessarily reflow the word within a responsive text box. The translated text may overflow the artwork even though the XML remains valid. The problem is not that the linguist translated incorrectly; the design failed to preserve enough horizontal space.
<text>
x
Now consider a geometry diagram whose angle labels were converted into vector outlines when the designer exported the file. Those letters are no longer searchable textual content. A CAT tool can report that it translated every text node while leaving the visual angle labels untouched. The diagram may then contain target-language explanatory text around source-language labels. That mixed-language output often goes unnoticed unless the reviewer examines the rendered image and asks whether every displayed word is actually in the translation inventory.
A third case is hidden text. The visible caption says “Energy leaves the system,” while the SVG’s desc gives screen-reader users a detailed explanation of red arrows and heat transfer. If only the visible words are translated, a blind reader receives an English description inside an otherwise target-language lesson. Neither the underlying file nor a regular screenshot necessarily reveals this discrepancy. Inspecting the accessibility surface must therefore be a scheduled step rather than an optional afterthought.
A productive review starts with one frozen source export, a screenshot at the intended website width, a specification of what the diagram teaches and a list of high-risk relationships. Record the SVG source hash or version, the authoring tool, intended publishing environment, target language and language variant. If the graphic is already embedded in a webpage, capture a live copy of the page too. The file on the designer’s desktop may differ from the version the website actually serves.
The teaching objective should be written as a one-sentence proposition, not a vague topic. For a photosynthesis chart, “shows that plants use light energy to make stored chemical energy” is more useful than “biology diagram.” For a probability tree, “shows how two independent coin tosses create four equally likely paths” is more useful than “mathematics.” The proposition provides a semantic anchor when space constraints tempt someone to shorten a translated label too far.
Build a compact label ledger. One row records the visible English string, the object or group ID if available, the coordinates or visual position, the arrow or region it names, the proposed target and an approval state. Use a separate row for title , desc and any metadata that will reach the user. Do not assume that one source word is only present once: the same word can label different functions in different positions. Record enough context to prevent a translator from using one target expression for two distinct concepts.
When the SVG contains numerical values, formulas or reference markers, record their invariants. Translating “radius” may be allowed; changing r = 5 cm to r = 5 m is not. Converting decimal punctuation or units may be permitted under an explicit locale policy, but it must not happen accidentally. If the source displays an equation, preserve mathematical operators, equality, greater-than signs, superscripts, indices and the correspondence between each symbol and its explanatory caption.
r = 5 cm
r = 5 m
Many SVG translation failures start when a global search-and-replace edits markup rather than the string the viewer reads. IDs, URL references, CSS class names, clip-path links, symbol names and marker references may contain English-looking words but function as technical handles. Changing id="arrowhead" without updating every url(#arrowhead) reference can cause an arrowhead to disappear. That is an engineering defect introduced in the name of translation.
clip-path
id="arrowhead"
url(#arrowhead)
A safer approach uses an XML-aware inventory or authoring-tool export to distinguish nodes representing human-facing language from nodes representing geometry and program structure. A translator might modify <text>Increase</text> but should not freely rename an associated object ID, class or script variable. The reviewer must also look for textual attributes intended for people, such as ARIA labels, rather than assuming all user-facing language sits between opening and closing text tags.
<text>Increase</text>
Some diagrams contain data-driven charts. Axis labels or legend values can be generated by JavaScript from a separate dataset. The source SVG in the repository may show placeholder text, while the live application injects the actual strings at runtime. In that case, editing the SVG file alone will not finish localization. The source-of-truth pack should include the data and resource keys that generate the final graphic. Test the fully rendered chart in the actual browser environment after the resource bundle is applied.
A final distinction concerns vectorised text. If a source label is a path, the translator cannot edit its letters as plain text. The producer may need the authoring source and a suitable licensed font to recreate the label. Reconstructing a complex diagram from a low-resolution screenshot is not equivalent to modifying the original vector asset. It introduces new layout and accessibility risks, and the QA record should identify the reconstruction as an additional design change.
A useful way to review a labelled diagram is to write down the subject, relation and object represented by every important visual connection. In a food web, “grass is eaten by rabbit” is a different relationship from “rabbit eats grass” only in grammatical packaging; the direction of the arrow may encode the flow of energy. The translation must preserve the intended convention used by that particular textbook, including any explanatory note about what arrows mean.
In a circuit diagram, translated component labels must remain attached to the correct symbols. Calling a resistor a capacitor is an obvious terminology error. More subtle is moving “input” and “output” to opposite sides when a target script has different reading direction. The visual layout may be rearranged for right-to-left reading, but signal flow and electrical polarity cannot be mirrored merely to make the overall graphic look locally familiar. Diagram logic takes precedence over superficial symmetry.
In a bar graph, a long target legend can cover the short bar and obscure the relative values. That is not simply a typography defect. A learner may misread which category the bar represents. The proper remedy is to use an approved shorter term, move the legend into a dedicated panel, introduce a line break with enough space or adjust the layout while keeping category-to-colour mapping intact. Recolouring one category to solve the overlap would create a second semantic change unless the key is updated and colour distinctions remain accessible.
Translate definitions and instructional labels at the level appropriate to the learner. Primary pupils may understand “water goes into the air” more readily than a bare technical term, but a science diagram assessing evaporation may need the curricular word “evaporation” exactly. Ask what the graphic is being used for: first teaching, revision, assessment or reference. The same diagram geometry can support different target phrasing, but only one target per declared instructional purpose should be approved in a particular file.
Two translations containing the same number of characters can occupy very different widths. Proportional fonts allocate different horizontal space to letters. Scripts vary in shaping, line height, glyph density and punctuation behaviour. A designer who imposes an arbitrary “maximum 14 characters” limit may overlook the real constraint: the rendered string must fit a specific visual region without colliding with the information it labels.
Measure or inspect rendered bounding boxes in the chosen font and language. For important diagrams, test with the actual final font rather than a browser fallback. When a font lacks target glyphs, the operating system may silently substitute a different family, changing line height and baseline. If a label appears above an arrow in one browser and directly on the arrow in another, examine font loading and text anchoring before assuming the translation itself is wrong.
Be cautious about scaling a translated label to fit a tiny box. Making a crucial phrase much smaller than nearby labels can reverse the intended emphasis and harm accessibility. Better interventions include allowing a designed two-line label, widening a callout, moving secondary explanations into a caption, choosing an approved concise term or adjusting internal whitespace. Every intervention should preserve the learner’s ability to scan the diagram in the expected order.
SVG text does not inherit all normal HTML wrapping behaviours. A hard-coded text element with x and y positions may require explicit line placement with tspan , a redesigned text container or another supported strategy. The reviewer should not rely on one screenshot taken at a large desktop scale. Render at the actual width of the worksheet, classroom projection, mobile page and any print output that the asset is expected to support.
y
MDN describes the SVG title element as a short accessible text description and desc as a longer description. Those elements do not normally render as ordinary visible words inside the diagram. Assistive technology may expose them through the accessibility tree, depending on the embedding method, markup and browser combination. A screen reader user therefore has a separate path to the information that a sighted learner obtains from colour, shape and arrows.
The target-language accessible name should identify what the graphic is, not merely repeat a filename. “Diagram” is too vague if the illustration depicts a five-stage water cycle. A meaningful short name might say “Water cycle showing evaporation, condensation and rainfall.” The longer description should preserve the sequence and relations: where arrows begin, where they end, what colours or symbols represent, and whether the figure contains exceptions or key numbers. Translating this explanatory passage requires the same care as translating the visible label set.
Do not treat title and desc as perfect universal equivalents of HTML alt . Whether SVG is inline, embedded through img , loaded through object or placed inside a button affects its accessible presentation. Inspect the actual publishing method. If the website provides an adjacent text explanation or an HTML alternative, verify that the target version is also localized and that screen readers do not announce several redundant descriptions in a confusing order.
alt
img
object
For complex figures, short alternative text can point to a full text description outside the asset. That may be better than packing an entire experiment into one enormous inaccessible name. However the link or neighbouring explanation must remain connected to the correct figure, and the description must reproduce the instructional relations, not merely list visual objects. A list saying “three arrows, four boxes and blue circles” does not explain how energy or water travels through the system.
Imagine a diagram with the sun in the upper left, a lake along the bottom, rising arrows from the water, a cloud at the top and falling arrows toward a hillside. The source labels are “evaporation,” “condensation,” “precipitation” and “collection.” A target-language review begins by identifying the represented process and the direction of each arrow. The term for evaporation must follow upward movement from surface water; precipitation must remain linked to the downward arrows.
The first draft passes linguistic review, but the translated condensation label expands and collides with the cloud edge. The designer moves the label three centimetres right. It now sits over the precipitation arrow. On a quick glance the picture remains attractive, yet a learner may infer that the downward process is condensation. The reviewer rejects the layout change, not the translation. The fix is to reposition the callout within the condensation region or create a leader line that unambiguously connects it to cloud formation.
Next the visible terms are correct, but the desc still reads “water rises from the sea” even though the image shows a lake. That mismatch was already in the source description. Should the target translator copy it? No. The discrepancy is recorded as a source defect, referred to the instructional author and corrected in both canonical and localized descriptions after approval. This illustrates an important boundary: translation QA can find source errors, but it should not quietly create an undocumented alternate scientific explanation.
Finally the diagram is placed in a lesson page. At full width the arrows and labels are legible, but on a narrow phone the SVG keeps its proportions and the words become very small. The team may provide a responsive alternative layout or a textual explanation below the graphic, depending on the product design. The release record therefore specifies the supported display sizes rather than promising one file will remain readable at every imaginable width.
A number line contains tick marks at negative two, negative one, zero, one and two. A blue arrow points from negative one to positive two and the source caption says “Move three units right.” Translating the sentence is straightforward until the graphic is mirrored for a right-to-left page. If the entire number line is reflected without checking sign positions and arrow direction, the caption can now contradict the movement shown. Reading direction cannot override the mathematical meaning of increasing values.
Preserve an invariant list: tick labels, numerical order, start position, end position, arrow length and the arithmetic relation -1 + 3 = 2 . For this worked example, a tester should state the start and end positions using the target version alone, then compare with the source. That independent reconstruction is stronger than asking whether the target screenshot “looks about right.” It also finds cases where a typographic minus is lost or visually confused with a dash in the target font.
-1 + 3 = 2
When text expansion places the instruction over the positive end of the line, do not hide numbers or remove an intermediate tick. Instead shift the text into a reserved caption area. Re-run the learner test: can a pupil understand what counts as right on the number line, where zero is, and how far the arrow travels? If the answer changes, the localization has failed even if every word is grammatically perfect.
A science worksheet shows two beakers, a thermometer, a hot plate and a hand pointing to the apparatus. A visible callout says “Do not touch the heated surface.” The diagram has safety significance. The reviewer records the prohibition, the object it applies to and the meaning of “heated.” Replacing the warning with a shorter phrase such as “Caution: hot” might be acceptable in some contexts, but only after the safety owner confirms that it communicates the required action clearly enough for the students’ age and the local setting.
The text is then fitted inside a yellow bubble. A longer target-language warning overflows, and the designer suggests trimming its final verb. That would remove the clear prohibition and leave only a property of the object. The proper repair is to enlarge the callout, move it below the apparatus or add an approved warning symbol and complete wording. A label near a burner should not be silently relocated next to a glass rod simply to solve a layout problem.
Verify that any hazard icon and colour remain meaningful without relying solely on colour perception. If the explanation includes “red means hot” and the print version is grayscale, readers need another cue. An accessible desc can explain the warning, but it does not excuse a visible diagram that is ambiguous to sighted pupils. The target must make the safe action understandable through the channels the lesson actually uses.
Consider a plotted experiment comparing temperature and time. The horizontal axis uses minutes, the vertical axis degrees Celsius, and two lines represent covered and uncovered containers. The user-facing labels may need translation, but the measured values, plotted points and series assignment are scientific data. A reviewer should identify what is language and what is data before approving edits. Translating a legend must not flip which line represents which condition.
A frequent defect arises when a target legend uses wider labels and the line samples are separated from their corresponding text. A sighted reader then associates the wrong description with a coloured line. Do not solve it by moving only the words. Move the line sample and label as one logical group, or redesign the legend with a stable sequence. Test the chart with both colour and monochrome rendering, because its meaning must survive ordinary classroom printing.
Watch numeric formats. An axis value of 1.5 may appear as 1,5 under a locale policy, but a data export or formula parser may still require a period internally. The display conversion should not alter the underlying dataset or shape geometry. Similarly, translating the unit symbol °C as if it were an ordinary word can create an invalid label. Keep a separate ledger for terms, units, values and axis semantics.
1.5
1,5
°C
Right-to-left languages create genuine design questions for SVG assets. A callout may align better on the opposite side of a figure. A diagram with a chronological reading flow may benefit from reversing its panel order. But not all arrows are reading-order arrows. In physics, a force vector points where the force acts. In maps, north remains north even when labels are Arabic or Hebrew. In Cartesian mathematics, the positive x-axis convention should not be changed through automatic mirroring.
Classify each directional signal. Narrative sequence arrows may be layout-dependent; mathematical vectors, compass bearings, chemical reaction conditions and physical flow directions are content-dependent. For a translated process diagram, write the sequence in plain words before mirroring anything. If a box that was first in the source must become first at the right edge, relocate it consciously and update connecting arrows together. Preserve node identities and meaning so automated links or interactions still point to the correct stage.
Mixed-script labels also need careful inspection. A target-language sentence may contain a Latin chemical formula, file name, equation or English brand. Bidirectional text ordering can make punctuation appear on the unexpected side of a token. Use appropriate direction attributes or isolation strategies supported by the target environment rather than inserting arbitrary invisible control characters without documentation. Test a real rendering engine; source-code order alone may not predict what a learner will see.
Finally, font shaping can change the vertical footprint of a label. Arabic letter joining, Indic conjuncts, tone marks and accented characters need suitable fonts and enough line height. If a target glyph is replaced with a box, the repair lies in the font pipeline or asset construction. Reject screenshots containing broken characters even if a reviewer can infer the intended term from context.
Compare source and target views under identical conditions: same viewport, same zoom, same background, same font availability and same browser or rendering engine. A pixel-perfect diff will inevitably highlight legitimate language differences, so it should not be treated as an automatic translation verdict. Use the comparison to direct attention to shifts in arrows, missing legends, moved objects, unexpected clipping and altered whitespace around important labels.
A productive visual audit first marks forbidden changes. Examples include a changed scale, altered numerical data, missing axis tick, moved measurement point, reversed arrow, changed map orientation and deleted warning symbol. Next it checks acceptable changes: text length, an intentionally resized caption box, approved wording and a relocated explanatory label. Separating forbidden content changes from permitted layout adaptations prevents visual regression from becoming a demand that every target language imitate the exact pixel geometry of English.
Use more than one output path. An SVG that looks correct in a desktop browser may be rasterised by a learning platform, inserted into a PDF, placed in a PowerPoint slide or printed from WordPress. Each path can apply fonts and scaling differently. Approve the target for the actual delivery surfaces, not for every hypothetical technology. If a secondary format is promised, generate it and inspect the result before release.
For repeated production, keep annotated screenshots of known defects. A reviewer who sees an example of a precipitation label moved onto an evaporation arrow learns what a semantic attachment error looks like. A reviewer who sees a legend line separated from its words learns a grouping failure. Concrete visual examples train judgment more effectively than a generic checkbox saying “layout OK.”
A lightweight accessibility test can begin with the browser’s accessibility inspector. Locate the SVG or its containing image, observe its computed accessible name and description, and check whether the target language is represented. For a complex inline diagram, inspect meaningful groups and the surrounding explanation. Then test the element with at least one screen reader and browser combination used by the intended audience where practicable.
Do not force every decorative line into an accessible node. Excessive announcements can make the diagram harder to understand. Group related shapes into meaningful units, and name the group according to its role in the instructional argument. A screen reader user usually needs to know that a blue arrow represents movement of water from the lake to the cloud; they do not need a verbose account of every path command used to draw that arrow.
Language identification matters. If the document is in Malay and a quoted scientific term remains in English, markup may need to identify the language change to assist pronunciation. But availability and behaviour vary across embedding methods and assistive technologies. The defensible test is outcome-based: can a learner using the supported accessibility path understand the same essential relation and retrieve any full explanation? Inspect and record the actual result rather than merely declaring an attribute present.
Some SVGs are purely decorative and should not interrupt screen-reader navigation. In those cases the adjacent paragraph carries the information and the decorative image may be hidden appropriately. The editorial decision should be deliberate and consistent with content. A diagram that teaches how to solve a problem is rarely decorative just because an illustration happens to appear alongside prose.
Different problems require different owners. A linguist can judge fluency, terminology and scope of negation. A subject tutor can verify that an arrow or equation still supports the lesson. A designer can repair layout and text positioning. An accessibility reviewer can check alternate descriptions and navigation. A developer or publisher can validate file integrity, safe embedding and the rendering path. Making one person “own everything” often hides these different evidence standards.
A useful issue record identifies the element, observed defect, expected meaning, source evidence, target locale, screenshot, severity and suggested next owner. For example: “In target locale B, legend entry for the red line is directly beneath the blue sample; expected red sample adjacent to red entry; compare lesson source graph v4; blocks student interpretation.” That report lets a designer fix grouping without asking a translator to rewrite unrelated content.
Classify severity by the effect on learning. A very small aesthetic misalignment might be tolerable if text remains readable and associated correctly. A relocated minus sign, reversed arrow, omitted hazard prohibition or wrong graph unit is not a cosmetic issue. Severity does not depend on how quickly the software can be patched. It depends on the consequence of the proposition being misunderstood.
Do not count acceptance merely by the number of issues closed. A target can have ten cosmetic repairs and still retain one critical semantic error. The release gate should state that no unresolved critical meaning, accessibility or functional defects remain, and that any known lower-severity limitations are documented. The goal is trusted instructional communication rather than an artificially clean issue spreadsheet.
At intake, preserve the source SVG and any authoring file. Record the intended audience, topic, locale, usage sizes and publishing destinations. Export a label and metadata inventory, identifying whether textual content is live, outlined, embedded as pixels or generated at runtime. Lock all scientific values, equation relationships, chart data, navigation targets and core diagram geometry unless the content owner explicitly authorises a change.
During localization, work through the label ledger in the order a learner reads the graphic. Provide each term with its attached object, not as an isolated string. Track approved terms, rejected alternatives and context-dependent choices. Where longer text needs redesign, create a design ticket that names the exact label and its semantic anchor. Do not hide a change to scientific meaning behind a layout request or hide a layout defect behind a shorter translation.
During review, render desktop, mobile and print or projection cases that the asset actually serves. Check label adjacency, arrows, legend mapping, units, font support and contrast. Review the target accessible name, description and language exposure. Test at least one realistic use case with a learner or tutor: ask the person to explain the diagram without reading the source version. If their interpretation departs from the original objective, investigate before releasing.
At the final gate, compare hashes or version identifiers of the reviewed and shipped target. A corrected SVG is not automatically the file in a WordPress media library, content delivery cache or lesson download. Verify the public asset, not only the staging version. Keep the approved source and target together with a short record of known exceptions. This makes later revisions cheaper and prevents an old target file from resurfacing after a website refresh.
One common failure is assuming all text was extracted. It happens when letters were converted to outlines or drawn in an embedded PNG. The symptom is a mixed-language diagram despite a complete translation report. The remedy is to compare the visible labels against the extraction inventory and return to editable source assets. Running more automatic translation over the same text nodes will never translate pixels that were never extracted.
Another failure is treating text relocation as harmless decoration. Moving a translated word can change which arrow, point or object it names. The reviewer should test the relationship, not merely distance from overlap. If a move breaks attachment, redesign the callout with an explicit leader line or a dedicated legend. This preserves meaning and may improve the source version too.
A third failure is trusting file validity as proof of instructional validity. XML parsing cannot tell whether “increase” was translated as “decrease.” It cannot know whether a scale bar has moved. Keep semantic review distinct from structural checks. Automated tools are useful for missing text, broken references, invalid XML and obvious overflows, while domain review remains necessary for the claim the diagram makes.
Other failures include losing title and desc , relying on colour alone, forcing long targets into tiny font sizes, auto-mirroring physical vectors for right-to-left locales, changing object IDs during translation and checking only the local file. Each requires a targeted repair: accessibility inspection, redundant visual cues, layout redesign, directional classification, stable technical references and production-surface verification. There is no single “translate image” button that can replace those decisions.
The same method transfers to maps if semantic anchors become place boundaries, north orientation, scale and symbol legends. It transfers to timelines if anchors become event order, dates and cause-effect arrows. It transfers to flowcharts if anchors become decision conditions, branch destinations and termination states. The surface changes, but the reasoning remains stable: identify which statements the geometry makes, translate the language associated with those statements, and inspect the target representation independently.
For a teacher who uses screenshots rather than editable SVG, the first task is to obtain a version with live text. If that is impossible, a professional redraw may be necessary, but the redraw should be reviewed as a new visual artifact. For a school website that hosts thousands of diagrams, prioritize high-risk figures and repeatable checks: language inventory coverage, referential integrity, responsive snapshots and accessible descriptions. The same asset QA can then support many subjects without pretending the subjects are identical.
An educational workflow should also make room for learners to notice diagram errors. Ask students to identify what an arrow means before reading the caption, then read the caption and compare. This tests whether visual and verbal information reinforce each other. When a student detects a contradiction, treat that discovery as evidence worth investigating rather than as a failure of attention. A good translation aims to make the relationship learnable, not merely to pass an editor’s review.
SVG diagram localization succeeds when a learner can draw the same correct conclusion from the target graphic as from the source, including through an accessible alternative. That requires control over text extraction, meaning-to-shape attachment, fonts, overflow, numerical invariants, directionality and the final rendered surface. Technical validity, fluent wording and attractive geometry are necessary pieces; none alone proves the diagram is correct.
The practical release question is simple: can the target learner identify the right objects, follow the intended arrows, read the right numbers, understand the warning or relation and access an equivalent description? If that answer is supported by evidence, the SVG can be approved. If the translation changes the proposition, move the design—not the truth—until the graphic teaches what it is supposed to teach.
Not reliably. A translation engine may process live text nodes, but it cannot necessarily detect lettering converted to paths, embedded image text, runtime-generated chart strings or semantic relationships between an arrow and label. Use an extraction inventory and final visual review.
No. title normally supplies a short descriptive text for accessibility or tooltip presentation, while visible labels are separate. The exact accessible result depends on markup and embedding. Review both channels.
No. Reading-order arrows may be rearranged, but physical vectors, mathematical axes, compass directions and process relations preserve their intended meaning. Classify each arrow before changing direction.
Test the actual target font and supported sizes. Redesign callouts, wrap explicitly where supported, widen space or use approved concise terminology. Avoid deleting essential concepts solely to meet a character limit.
Ask a learner to explain the translated diagram without consulting its source. Compare the explanation with the exact lesson objective and check numbers, arrows, legend mapping and warnings before examining aesthetic details.
For the broader language workflow, link this article to the How People Translate Quickly series index and Master Art of Translation . A future specialist companion could cover the separate task of extracting outlined text from legacy figures; it should not duplicate the acceptance procedure here. Choose existing internal URLs only after confirming their public destination before publishing.
<title>
<desc>
