Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >
Wrong wrong wrong to preclude providers on the basis of which software they use.
Thread poster: Anthony Baldwin
Uldis Liepkalns
Uldis Liepkalns  Identity Verified
Latvia
Local time: 18:02
Member (2003)
English to Latvian
+ ...
Cafetrans Dec 8, 2008

I don't have Mac myself, but you might want to read this thread:

http://www.proz.com/topic/102157

And one of our translators almost always delivering nearly perfect results uses Cafetrans.

Uldis


Amy Duncan wrote:
If you know about any CAT tools for Mac, please let me know!


 
Anthony Baldwin
Anthony Baldwin  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:02
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
various options for mac Dec 8, 2008

Amy Duncan wrote:

I'm a Mac user and have never heard of any fancy CAT tools for Mac, or any CAT tools at all, for that matter.
At some point I may be forced to use Trados, and so I have installed Parallels and Windows XP on my Mac...sorry, this is a little off topic, but I just couldn't let it pass. If you know about any CAT tools for Mac, please let me know!


I use the already mentioned OmegaT, which is great, and also runs on Mac.
There is also Anaphraseus, which works as a plug-in with OpenOffice and works like older versions of Wordfast (and I assume works with NeoOffice).
To my knowledge, Swordfish will run on a Mac (it is written in Java, and fully cross-platform, really a nice tool.
The only reason I don't use it is that I use only free/open source software, which it isn't. The other two I mention are).
Wordfast will also run on Mac.
Actually, you have quit a few options.
I recommend OmegaT and/or Anaphraseus, above all, but you have other options, too.

[Edited at 2008-12-08 22:46 GMT]


 
Daniel García
Daniel García
English to Spanish
+ ...
Workflow optimisation Dec 9, 2008

As it has been said, if a customer has built their workflow around a specific tool, all their staff is trained to use that tool. They know how that tool works and they know the issues it has and how to solve them.

If you have a big project with 10 or 20 translators working in parallel, if all translators work with the same tool with the same type of file, you can expect that they will come across more or less the same types of issues. Solving them becomes easier.

Now,
... See more
As it has been said, if a customer has built their workflow around a specific tool, all their staff is trained to use that tool. They know how that tool works and they know the issues it has and how to solve them.

If you have a big project with 10 or 20 translators working in parallel, if all translators work with the same tool with the same type of file, you can expect that they will come across more or less the same types of issues. Solving them becomes easier.

Now, if those 10 translators are working with 10 different tools, each will probably have different types of issues and the work need to support your providers with these problems becomes immense very quickly.

I do believe that there are reasons to ask translators to use the same tool.

I was once involved in a project where a good translator had to be rejected because he was using DV. The reason was that we didn't have the resources to make sure that all his delivered files were 100% compatible for further processing with our customer's tool after they were returned (the file format was heavily formatted Doc files).

Daniel

PS. By the way, when you take a taxi, you can either let the driver (your provider) choose the best route or you can give him directions about the route you want to use. Giving detailed instructions to a provider about how to achieve their goals is not so strange...
Collapse


 
Riccardo Schiaffino
Riccardo Schiaffino  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 10:02
Member (2003)
English to Italian
+ ...
I can do that ... but not for all customers Dec 9, 2008

Kevin Lossner wrote:

The only way you would is if you translate like a little Trados robot and take whatever garbage segmentation you are presented with. Only a very rank beginner does such things I think.

As Uldis has pointed out, a lot of problems are really traceable to the source files or the way they were processed in the first place. Anyone who doesn't do a "round trip" pseudotranslation before doing the real work is just asking for trouble. This isn't a criticism of any CAT tool, just an observation of problems based on several CAT tools and some very stressful 2 a.m. experiences with project rescue.


When we work for most direct customers, we normally do that, of course, and have therefore a lot more freedom in what to accept or not from translators.

We are somewhat more limited choices (but usually, not exceedingly so) with most of the medium-size multi-language providers for which we work as SLP. But some of our largest MLP customers are very strict about working on presegmented and partially pretranslated files... and in those instances we are much more limited in what we can do or not, and therefore in what we can accept or not.


 
Anthony Baldwin
Anthony Baldwin  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:02
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
taxi Dec 9, 2008

dgmaga wrote:

As it has been said, if a customer has built their workflow around a specific tool, all their staff is trained to use that tool. They know how that tool works and they know the issues it has and how to solve them.

If you have a big project with 10 or 20 translators working in parallel, if all translators work with the same tool with the same type of file, you can expect that they will come across more or less the same types of issues. Solving them becomes easier.

Now, if those 10 translators are working with 10 different tools, each will probably have different types of issues and the work need to support your providers with these problems becomes immense very quickly.

I do believe that there are reasons to ask translators to use the same tool.

I was once involved in a project where a good translator had to be rejected because he was using DV. The reason was that we didn't have the resources to make sure that all his delivered files were 100% compatible for further processing with our customer's tool after they were returned (the file format was heavily formatted Doc files).

Daniel

PS. By the way, when you take a taxi, you can either let the driver (your provider) choose the best route or you can give him directions about the route you want to use. Giving detailed instructions to a provider about how to achieve their goals is not so strange...


Hey, I don't tell a cab driver what kind of car to drive, or where to fill his gas tank.
I imagine DV could have handled the heavily formatted .doc files as well as any other tool.
I don't know. I don't use DV. But the tools I use do.


 
Kevin Fulton
Kevin Fulton  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:02
German to English
Common in a lot of industries Dec 9, 2008

I translate a number of requests for proposals for the automotive industry as well as other business sectors, and most of them specify the software the bidder must use when providing documents to the customer. The buyer has the right to specify the tools used to supply the documents provided by the vendor. When I was a technical writer, no one complained about having to prepare document in a certain format. Using specified software was part of the cost of doing business. Translation is not diffe... See more
I translate a number of requests for proposals for the automotive industry as well as other business sectors, and most of them specify the software the bidder must use when providing documents to the customer. The buyer has the right to specify the tools used to supply the documents provided by the vendor. When I was a technical writer, no one complained about having to prepare document in a certain format. Using specified software was part of the cost of doing business. Translation is not different in this respect.

As others have indicated, having a common format promotes successful workflow -- when everyone is using the same tool, there are fewer worries about TM compatibilities or the format of the product the translator submits -- the translator's product must be fully compatible with the tools the editor uses. I've seen enough headaches caused by people using different releases of the same software (TM / termbase compatibility issues); preparing files using differing tools only adds to the problem. I've worked on mega-projects involving as many as 30 translators and millions of words, and believe me, the last thing a PM wants to worry about is compatibility issues. (disclosure: I am not a project manager, but I've played one on TV). Format regulation should be one of the most simple elements of quality control.

Kevin L indicated that good translators use a "round trip" approach to ensure compatibility when using a variant tool. I agree, but unfortunately such folk appear to be in a minority. In my own experience, I've translated files using a CAT tool other than the one specified by the client, and frequently the amount of post-translation tinkering has offset the advantages of using what I consider a more efficient CAT tool. This is especially true when working with Trados TagEditor files prepared from OCR scans. Even after running the "Code zapper" macro to eliminate rogue codes, I've found it easier to process such files in TagEditor rather than DVX, my own tool of choice.

Speaking of choice, I remember when translators delivered their work as hard copy. Prior to the popularity of the Internet, no one worried about file compatibility, since files were generally submitted/received as print-outs. In the US, WordPerfect was the word processor of choice among the translators I knew (this was in the days of DOS-based word processors). For a variety of reasons, MS Word for Windows became the ascendant program. Translators accepted this for the most part (except for those who continued to submit in hard copy), due to market forces.

If a translator chooses to use a tool other than those preferred by clients, he/she must be prepared to accept that the types of projects that can be accepted are limited. Collaborative projects are largely excluded. I don't think that anyone in this biz will disagree that collaboration = referrals.

The other issue has to do with our selection of operating systems / CAT tools. Do we choose them because we want to enhance our own efficiency, or do we select the tool in order to meet market demand? I started with a CAT tool over 10 years ago in order to increase my output. I bought a second, more popular, tool in order to meet market demand. Although I find using DVX to be more satisfying than working with Trados, most of my income is derived from working on Trados-related files. I must admit that at this point in my life, I'm more interested in the money than personal satisfaction from using specific software. I get all the enjoyment I need from my non-translating activities.
Collapse


 
Kevin Lossner
Kevin Lossner  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 16:02
German to English
+ ...
Still makes no sense Dec 9, 2008

Riccardo Schiaffino wrote:
But some of our largest MLP customers are very strict about working on presegmented and partially pretranslated files... and in those instances we are much more limited in what we can do or not, and therefore in what we can accept or not.


As long as each target segment is populated in these files there is no barrier to using other tools in such cases. When I do run into cases like this, I combine the segments in my environment to avoid what are often meaningless source/target mismatches in my TM and let the client have the garbage they insist on.

How on earth do you justify specifying a tool for presegmented files then?


 
Kevin Lossner
Kevin Lossner  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 16:02
German to English
+ ...
Taxi drivers with DV looking to translate.... Dec 9, 2008

Anthony Baldwin wrote:

dgmaga wrote:
I was once involved in a project where a good translator had to be rejected because he was using DV. The reason was that we didn't have the resources to make sure that all his delivered files were 100% compatible for further processing with our customer's tool after they were returned (the file format was heavily formatted Doc files).


Hey, I don't tell a cab driver what kind of car to drive, or where to fill his gas tank.
I imagine DV could have handled the heavily formatted .doc files as well as any other tool.
I don't know. I don't use DV.


Your loss, dgmaga. If you check out the guidelines for using DVX with Word or TTX files which are posted on the "How To" tab of my profile, you'll see that this is really a no-brainer. The process of presegmentation in Trados, translation in the other tool (DV, MemoQ, etc.) and subsequent clean-up (if desired) with the original tool is very well established and has been for years. The only area I've seen where real compatibility issues arise is when DV users foolishly rely on "Trados Workbench exports" from their DV TMs to share data. While this data can in fact be imported into Workbench, it's a real pain in the butt because of how the DV codes are exported, and the matching is rather messed up. That should be a method of last resort for concordance purposes only; the only really clean data sharing method I've seen is the aforementioned process to produce perfectly normal uncleaned files or the importing of uncleaned files (changing no match segments to fuzzies for Word/RTF) into DV and sending the content to the TM from the project. That way you have absolutely clean exchange of data.

I assume there may be similar issues with other tools, but most or all of these will produce perfectly usable unclean Trados files, particularly for those cases like R. mentioned where the customer supplies presegmented files and insists on no changes to the crappy presegmentation.


 
Boyan Brezinsky
Boyan Brezinsky  Identity Verified
Bulgaria
Local time: 18:02
English to Bulgarian
+ ...
There is more than one way to do it. Dec 9, 2008

Anthony Baldwin wrote:
...............

The issue here is, there are now many job posts from which I am now being locked out of bidding, for not having reported experience with, or possession of "XXXXXX (cat tool)", since use of this tool is not being preferred, but rather required, and it is with this requirement that I take issue.
If this is the case, why don't you get some experience in whatever tool is needed. Then you can quote having expereince with it with clear conscience. You can also download a free/demo version. And you can even run it in a Windows virtual machine.
And you will continue to use whatever software you are most comfortable with.
I don't really think that an agency will want you to supply a proof of purchase for a specific tool.
The only problem I see is if the agency sends you a file - a TM, for example - in a proprietary format and expects you to give back an updated file (TM) in that same format, and you don't have the tools to perform the conversion.

As to why agencies insist on requiring a specific software - because they are translation agencies. They do not understand computers and software (heck, I've been around computers and software since elementary school and understand them less and less every day). They want to supply translations, not to fiddle with computers. Since they "know" that there is an "industry standard" CAT tool, they believe that by using it, they will be shielded from problems. As most of us here know (without quotes), this is not guaranteed at all. However, trying to educate an organization is an exercise in futility, so I'd prefer to pretend I'm abiding their rules.

[Edited at 2008-12-09 07:04 GMT]


 
Kevin Lossner
Kevin Lossner  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 16:02
German to English
+ ...
Futility Dec 9, 2008

bsb_2 wrote:
... trying to educate an organization is an exercise in futility, so I'd prefer to pretend I'm abiding their rules.


My approach is to ensure that I have all the tools on hand to do it their way or "my" way, and I accept full responsibility for the results. There are a few instances in which I agree with Kevin Fulton that TagEditor is a more efficient tool and will give me better, faster results than DV, but there are others in which there is no guarantee of stable results working with the SDL Trados tools alone. That's why I'm quite adamant about round-tripping the files before I start translating, and I've begun to encourage some of my more technically competent agencies to do this before they send files to me just to save us all a lot of hassles. This is a basic QA precaution which becomes even more necessary these days given the instabilities found in converted documents. This has nothing to do with what tool one chooses.

As for educating an organization is concerned, I put that in about the same class as projecting various bodily fluids into the wind. People who get things done usually let the organizational monkeys chatter on and believe what they like while the real work gets done by the most appropriate means. You can give me all the nonsense you want about workflow optimization & the like (in fact I'm so fond of such nonsense that I'm writing a book on the topic), but much of these formal procedures are merely a security blanket for those who lack the competence or the perception to understand what is really going on with a process. That's not a bad thing - we need to start somewhere and have some working template to make routine stuff flow well. But sticking rigidly to the formula will also get you in trouble when things go wrong and you don't understand the reasons behind the processes well enough to identify alternatives. If you do understand these reasons, then you can function as a "black box" in the process chain and take full responsibility for ensuring that your output is fully compatible with specifications. Note that word responsibility: no excuses if it isn't.

As far as those "collaborative projects" that Kevin refers to are concerned, I assume he means something involving a server-based TM. Yes, if you want to play that game, I think you really must get whatever tool is being used centrally to work in a fully integrated way with the other team members. It doesn't matter whether you're dealing with Trados, Across, MemoQ or something else. However, I would never consider such cattle call projects to be a source of the sort of referral work I would want. I've been offered such opportunities in the past (I do have the tools to participate if I choose to do so), but I find the thought of such cooperation vastly unappealing. Unless such projects pay considerably more than solo work where I have full control over the results or unless I hit such a dry spell that I'm desperate to pay the mortgage or feed my cat, I can't imagine wanting to deal with it.


[Edited at 2008-12-09 10:13 GMT]


 
Dinny
Dinny  Identity Verified
Greece
Local time: 18:02
Italian to Danish
+ ...
About time to raise this subject! Dec 9, 2008

Thanks, Anthony, for starting this topic. I am totally annoyed, too, when a job posting which I am interested in is stating "you do not fulfill the necessary requirements to bid on this job", or something like that, just because I use a different CAT tool! I start argueing with my screen that I do, that this specific job is about something I specialize in, that I would be the best translator for this job - nothing helps, I am not allowed to send a quote.
This will one day be just another
... See more
Thanks, Anthony, for starting this topic. I am totally annoyed, too, when a job posting which I am interested in is stating "you do not fulfill the necessary requirements to bid on this job", or something like that, just because I use a different CAT tool! I start argueing with my screen that I do, that this specific job is about something I specialize in, that I would be the best translator for this job - nothing helps, I am not allowed to send a quote.
This will one day be just another "Microsoft issue"... a pity it will take years and years before somebody realizes that Trados is dominating the market. I wouldn't be surprised if one day you will be forced to include Trados when buying a new computer!
Collapse


 
Mulyadi Subali
Mulyadi Subali  Identity Verified
Indonesia
Local time: 23:02
Member
English to Indonesian
+ ...
ignorant Dec 9, 2008

some of my clients, despite stating the requirement for trados, don't really care about the final delivery. most of the time, i just provide them cleaned file and tmx generated from omegat. i prefer omegat for most of my translation work as it can run from my ufd, i.e., portable, so i can start working without being limited to a particular computer.

 
José Henrique Lamensdorf
José Henrique Lamensdorf  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 13:02
English to Portuguese
+ ...
In memoriam
The problem is when the request is not justified Dec 9, 2008

I have been precluded from bidding on some translation jobs for not having that specific overpriced and often deemed malfunctioning CAT software... on jobs where NO CAT tool would have helped any! Some typical examples are recorded audio files, script-less video files for dubbing or subtitling, and handwritten documents.

Nevertheless some outsourcers simply won't let go off that unjustified demand. Either there is some despicable marketing tactics by that manufacturer going o
... See more
I have been precluded from bidding on some translation jobs for not having that specific overpriced and often deemed malfunctioning CAT software... on jobs where NO CAT tool would have helped any! Some typical examples are recorded audio files, script-less video files for dubbing or subtitling, and handwritten documents.

Nevertheless some outsourcers simply won't let go off that unjustified demand. Either there is some despicable marketing tactics by that manufacturer going on behind the scenes, or they have believed that it always lowers costs, or their gurus have told them that anyone not having that specific CAT tool - and no other - is obviously a fledgling amateur.

While I was getting used to WordFast, one of the best translation agencies I work for, wrote me: We don't care if you use CAT tools; that's your problem, not ours. However if you do, you must clean up properly afterwards.
Collapse


 
Kevin Lossner
Kevin Lossner  Identity Verified
Portugal
Local time: 16:02
German to English
+ ...
Going where no CAT could go before Dec 9, 2008

José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote:
I have been precluded from bidding on some translation jobs for not having that specific overpriced and often deemed malfunctioning CAT software... on jobs where NO CAT tool would have helped any! Some typical examples are recorded audio files, script-less video files for dubbing or subtitling, and handwritten documents.


My particular favorite request of this type was to use a particular CAT tool on some TIFF files. When I got done laughing, I wrote the young project manager and said that I would be happy to comply as long as she could instruct me on the specific techniques of doing so. A short time later common sense prevailed.


 
Anthony Baldwin
Anthony Baldwin  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:02
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
open formats Dec 9, 2008

bsb_2 wrote:

Anthony Baldwin wrote:
...............

The issue here is, there are now many job posts from which I am now being locked out of bidding, for not having reported experience with, or possession of "XXXXXX (cat tool)", since use of this tool is not being preferred, but rather required, and it is with this requirement that I take issue.
If this is the case, why don't you get some experience in whatever tool is needed. Then you can quote having expereince with it with clear conscience. You can also download a free/demo version. And you can even run it in a Windows virtual machine.
And you will continue to use whatever software you are most comfortable with.
I don't really think that an agency will want you to supply a proof of purchase for a specific tool.
The only problem I see is if the agency sends you a file - a TM, for example - in a proprietary format and expects you to give back an updated file (TM) in that same format, and you don't have the tools to perform the conversion.

As to why agencies insist on requiring a specific software - because they are translation agencies. They do not understand computers and software (heck, I've been around computers and software since elementary school and understand them less and less every day). They want to supply translations, not to fiddle with computers. Since they "know" that there is an "industry standard" CAT tool, they believe that by using it, they will be shielded from problems. As most of us here know (without quotes), this is not guaranteed at all. However, trying to educate an organization is an exercise in futility, so I'd prefer to pretend I'm abiding their rules.

[Edited at 2008-12-09 07:04 GMT]


The specified tool will not run on my platform, and I will most certainly not purchase a Windows license, not to run this one program or any other.
If I wanted to use windows, I would be using it already.
I gave up windows 9 years ago, and I will not go back to it, nor will I run it in a virtual machine.
I use only 100% free/open source software (software livre), and I believe that, so long as I can provide the appropriate target documents in the required formats, I should be afforded to use the software I choose. I believe others should have this choice, as well, whether they choose, as I do, software livre, or if they choose other tools, whether they be memoq, swordfish, wordfast, dvx, nvu, transolution, esperantilo, omegat, anaphraseus, cafetrans, heartsome, java open language tools, or any other tool available on the market.

Above all, they're should be open standards for document formats, such as odf, po, tmx and xliff, anyway, so that documents can be shared across platforms and tools without issue. Allowing any manner of proprietary file format to dominate the market would be like allowing one person to patent paper and have control over all and any information that is printed on it.

These agencies are paying me to translate. They aren't paying me to purchase software.
They're always begging for low rates. I could not give them the very reasonable rates I do, were I to waste money on Windows
and all the related software, and, as I have already mentioned numerous times, I can provide them with the same target files using other software.
Once again, I liken this matter to painting a house. Choose your color, even choose your brand of paint...but the tools I use to apply it should be of my own choosing. Any brand of paint brush (corona, purdy, etc) on the market will apply any manner of paint, whether it be gloss, semi-gloss, flat, oil, acrylic, or latex.
File formats are the paint, the translation is the finished house. The software is the brush. Don't tell me what brush I must use, when any brand of brush will apply the paint to your house just as well, and the ones I choose keep my overhead low both in reference to cost and efficiency. The reality that some other huge brush manufacturer is good at advertising and monopolizing the market does not mean that their brushes apply a coat of paint better.

[Edited at 2008-12-09 13:08 GMT]

[Edited at 2008-12-09 13:11 GMT]


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Wrong wrong wrong to preclude providers on the basis of which software they use.






Trados Studio 2022 Freelance
The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.

Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.

More info »
TM-Town
Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business

Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.

More info »