Language Selector Reader Journey Review
Check whether a reader can find and choose a real language version, recover from an automatic choice and stay on the intended task.
Read this resource as Markdown
When to use this template
Use this when a software marketing site has actual translated content but readers cannot reliably reach their preferred version. Test the visible choice and destination with the real page open.
Choose another approach when: You need only a hreflang inventory, have no actual translated destination, or want to infer everyone’s preferred language from location.
Gather these inputs
- Actual language versions, visible selector labels and equivalent-task destinations.
- Relevant device, keyboard and assistive-use contexts for a bounded review.
- Any automatic language/region choice and the route for overriding it.
Copy and adapt the template
Edit the text below and copy it into your own document. Edits stay in this browser field and are not submitted or saved by this page.
Worked example
Illustrative example, not a Crany customer result. Replace every example detail with facts you can verify.
Fictional example: a French-speaking reader reaches an English tutorial from a shared link. The review checks that the visible language choice is recognizable and leads to the actual French tutorial, rather than merely the French homepage. The reviewer also tests keyboard navigation and an incorrect automatic language choice. A country setting cannot substitute for the reader’s preferred language, and a missing translation needs an honest fallback. The team records only the contexts it actually tested. Correct human navigation does not prove that Google crawled every locale-adaptive response. This worksheet does not add languages, change location settings or claim a full accessibility audit.
How to use it
- Choose real reader starting cases and inspect the visible language options.
- Exercise selection, keyboard navigation, destination continuity and override behavior.
- Record fallback gaps and keep crawler discovery evidence as a separate check.
Check before using it
- Option names help readers recognize their actual language.
- Automatic location-based selection does not prevent a manual language choice.
- A translated homepage is not mislabeled as an equivalent tutorial destination.
What to measure
Track failed choices, wrong-task destinations and recovery failures in the tested contexts. Review voluntary reader feedback where available. A passed journey check is not proof of every-device accessibility, translation quality or search discoverability.
Research and sources
W3C discusses recognizable localized choices and manual links; Google explains locale-adaptive crawl limits. This original human-journey review keeps language navigation separate from search annotations and does not adopt obsolete interface or font-workaround recommendations.
- W3C Internationalization: Using select to link to localized content — checked 2026-10-24. Recognizable target-language option names and manual access to localized content. Original worksheet does not adopt outdated graphical text or accessibility-label workarounds.
- Google Search Central: How Google crawls locale-adaptive pages — checked 2026-10-24. Locale-adaptive responses may not all be crawled; explicit separate locale URLs and annotations are recommended. Human switching requires separate verification.
About Crany
Crany is an AI marketing co-founder in development for software founders and vibe coders, designed to strategize, execute approved marketing and improve based on results. This free resource is usable independently of the product. Join the public waitlist.