Reader survey: the best and worst things about your CAT tools
In preparation for the second edition of How to Succeed as a Freelance Translator, I’m revising the chapter on translation technology. I’d like to include some “best and worst” observations from translators who use various translation environment tools, so if you are interested in having your comments included (anonymously) in this chapter, please submit them. They can be short: for example I would say:
Wordfast: Best: Excellent documentation, fast, friendly support, love the three years of unlimited upgrades. Overall, I find Wordfast Classic very intuitive to use, and the two-toned interface is easy on the eyes. Worst: I waited years (sounds dramatic but it’s true!) for their new platform-independent version so that I could finally run Wordfast on an all open source system, only to find out that Wordfast Pro does not recognize Microsoft Office-format files that were created in or have ever been opened in OpenOffice. I just don’t get it: a Linux-specific version of a program that requires Microsoft Word (and doesn’t say that up front)?
OmegaT: Best: Free! Simple! Fast! And a great user community. I love OmegaT. Worst: Can’t produce Trados-style uncleaned files without a lot of tinkering. And the tags inside the segments… I know, the tags are there for a reason, but when I’m translating a file that’s been created using OCR software and is thus full of formatting tags, they’re annoying.
Anyone else?
Written by corinnemckay
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hi Corinne,
I’d like to comment on Trados Studio. The down side is that it is very pricy and the customer service is not optimal. The good news is that it is very powerful: supports a lot of formats (xliff, native DTP formats, even pdfs), it is integrated with machine translation for no matches, predictive text (Auto suggest dictionaries), extended QA features.
A very interesting tool I haven’t used yet but looks very promissing is Across: translator version is free and has all capabilities (unlike lite versions of other tools). Has anyone tried it yet?
The ergonomics of Across are appalling, or at least that was the case in the last version I tried. You really do get what you pay for in this case unless you are a corporate licensee.
Right now among the major commercial products I think MemoQ has the best mix of features, support and ease of use. The things I am seeing in the soon-to-be released (Feb 1) version 4 are exciting.
I am fascinated by what a colleague said recently about CafeTrans (from Poland) and plan to have a look. It’s multi-platform, inexpensive and has an impressive spiel.
GT4T Pro (Google Translator for Translators, available from http://dallascao.com)
Pros: If you want to speed up your translation by taking advantage of Google Translate’s suggestions, this tool allows you to do it from within any program you are using to translate: just select the sentence to translate, hit Ctrl+J, and the selected source text is replaced by the Google translation. I tested it from within Workbench (using both the Word and the Tag Editor interfaces), and from within SDLX. It works, and can help speeding up your translation. The tool is cheap, and allows for a generous trial period.
Cons: Apart from the obvious (the quality of the MT provided), the tool sometime only translates parts of the text, if the selection is too long. Also, concerns have been voiced about the use Google will make of the texts you pass through their translation engine, and they also apply if the text is processed by Google through another interface such as this one.
As regards the quality of the MT provided by Google, your mileage may vary, depending on the type of text and language pair. In some fields I find it is good enough as a first rough draft. In others it is still quite useless.
I’ve been using OmegaT for a relatively short time, and work with Japanese pdfs which do produce lots of useless tags when I OCR them. My solution is simple, but probably very unorthodox. I just ignore the tags; when I’m through, I just copy the whole translation, paste it into a Word file, and make it into a proper document. This last step requires some time and effort, but on jobs like patents, with lots of repetitions, I assume that I’m still saving time.
I have had a short experience with OmegaT recently, and here is what I have come up with after testing (as my testing was really short, there is a great chance that I am wrong or settings exist that can eliminate the below problem):
1.OmegaT does not support shared access to translation memory which means limited teamwork capabilities.
2.My opinion is that the GUI, although usable, does not comply with the usability standards of today. It is difficult to understand which segment is currently open, switching between non-adjacent segments is possible with mouse only, source highlighting is possible again with mouse only.
3.As far as I understand, the only way to search the TM is through the standard Search feature. I do not think that this is convenient enough compared to what we have in other common translation environments. The search results are not highlighted. I also did not find the “search and replace” feature.
4.The tags are not protected by default.
5.I experienced problems with copying text into the clipboard, which might be attributable to Java environment.
The advantages include:
1.Automatic project structure creation.
2.The selection is automatically inserted in the Search field when you open the Search feature.
3.I liked the way the “clean up” feature is implemented.
4.Open source, which allows modification.
In general, it is quite good for a free software. For small translations, however, I’d rather use the more sophisticated Wordfast Pro that is free until 500 segments in the TM.
The Corporatization of Translation
by James F. Shipp
I love my profession. I have always loved it. That’s why I am extremely concerned by certain unsavory trends in the industry.
CAT Tools
So-called CAT tools are the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the translation community. They are expensive to obtain and maintain, difficult to learn, and cumbersome to use. They make the translator’s task more difficult and diminish the quality of the final product, as well as its value. They cannot perform essential Internet research, work with scanned documents, or manipulate graphics. They are not intuitive, as a translator must be. They are demeaning to the translator as a human being.
Circular Translation
So-called circular translation is a process wherein a completed translation comes back to the translator, sometimes weeks after its submittal, so the translator can “edit the editor”. The translator is expected to halt paying translation work and perform this nontranslation task free of charge. First of all, I am not an editor, I am a translator. You don’t ask a barber to trim your nails, you ask a manicurist. Secondly, once a translation containing my best effort leaves my desk, it is up to the client, the client’s editor, the end client, and the end client’s editor to make any changes in it. I am eager to learn and I always appreciate feedback on my work, but it is not my job as a translator to do perform this task for you.
Workflow Systems
The advent of so-called workflow systems has begun to impact my work. The client sets up an internal system whereby you are expected to download source documents, then upload target documents and invoices, effectively shifting document control functions to the translator for no extra pay. First of all, you end up with an entire Rolodex full of user IDs and passwords for the various workflow systems of different clients. Secondly, what could possibly be easier than the original time-tested system: You e-mail me a source document, I e-mail you a target document, and you mail me a check.
Deadlines
If the client agrees to an impossible end client deadline, that is not my problem. I already work from 5:00 a.m. till 7:00 p.m., seven days a week, 365 days a year, sometimes longer. I generate at least 4,000 premium words a day. I am not willing to do more than that for any amount of money and you cannot seek to shame me into doing it.
Editing
An extremely disturbing trend in the translation industry is the editing of source>target documents by target>source translators. This is impermissible. If, say, an E>R translator was qualified to edit R>E work, he or she would then be an R>E translator. If they are not competent to translate it, they are certainly not competent to edit it. Who would you most trust to repair your car … a mechanic or a counter clerk at an auto parts store?
Payment
Newly emerging clients keep trying to get me to work by the source word. This is like paying a carpenter for the wood he uses rather than the house he builds. I must be paid for the words I actually produce, not the words from which I produce them. I will not sustain a 35% loss of pay because you have made a source word deal with your client.
Some clients are on a 45- or 60-day pay cycle. This is ridiculous. They want their translations “yesterday”, then expect me to wait as much as two months to get paid. All my creditors are on a 30-day cycle, so I must be as well. I allow 30 days for payment, plus 5 days mail time. This is far more reasonable than the deadlines I am given. Quid pro quo.
Translator-Client Relations
The client is buying the translator’s product. The translator is the vendor. As such, the transaction terms belong to the translator. You don’t by a TV or a refrigerator, then tell the seller how you intend to pay for it. The same thing is true of a translation. Translators are not employees, but independent contractors. The lack of benefits and the existence of heavy tax bills prove this. Do not let a “customer” bully you in your own “store”.
I have been a paid professional translator for 46 years. I have championed translator rights for almost half a century. I helped found the only true translators’ union in the country (which has foundered due to lack of community support, but continues to breathe). If you want me to keep quiet about the dignity and integrity of translators, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to wait a few more years until I shuffle off to that Great Translantorium in the sky.
Good translating,
Jim Shipp