Why "shift-left" is a wrong metaphor for #localisation.

The concept of “shift-left” entered localization discourse through DevOps and software engineering (like many other things). It was adopted to express a legitimate frustration: translation and localization are often treated as afterthoughts, considered only once decisions about the content or the product have already been made. And the term was meant to push for earlier involvement of language expertise in the process.

But there are issues with this metaphor.

One is that “shift-left” is culturally marked: it assumes a left-to-right linear timeline, which draws from Western, Latin-script workflows.

But many cultures conceptualize process differently: right-to-left, top-down, circular, iterative, or center-outward. Presenting “left” as initial (a better place to be) brings in a cultural image that is not universal.

For a field based in cultural sensitivity, this metaphor is anything but sensitive to cultural differences.

Most importantly, what localization actually wants is not to move “earlier on a line” but closer to the center of decision-making. And shift-left tries to fix a power problem with a timeline metaphor.

So instead of this culturally biased, and conceptually inaccurate metaphor, I suggest a spatial, not linear one:

from periphery to center.