Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4] >
Client specifies Trados - is Wordfast ok?
Thread poster: Jenny Nilsson

José Henrique Lamensdorf  Identity Verified
Brazil
Local time: 02:23
English to Portuguese
+ ...
In memoriam
I tend to disagree Jun 17, 2011

Jerzy Czopik wrote:
This is like you would say you can fill a gasoline car with diesel fuel, as both are basicaly a raffinate of crude oil and thus the same.


In the car analogy, I think the difference between Trados and WordFast is more like the one between a Ford and a Citroen. Both do the same thing, use the same fuel (in this case, a PC), but the way of doing it has its differences.

Of course, if there is a pre-existing Trados-exclusive TM (in the car analogy, a standardized fleet), there is reason to demand it. Otherwise, it's just the effect of the far more aggressive SDL marketing strategy. Back to the analogy, Fords are known anywhere, worldwide, while there are large countries where most people have never seen a Citroen on the streets (e.g. the USA).

Some outsources demand Trados for jobs where it (and any other CAT tool) is absolutely useless, just to make sure they are hiring a translator who is investing heavily in CAT software... and not, for instance, DTP, video, CG, web development, etc., or not investing in software at all.


 

Ulf Samuelsson  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 00:23
English to Swedish
+ ...
Not yet a dead end Jun 17, 2011

So far, I've never received a project that require Trados Studio. Only Trados 2007.

And, it is still possible to do the same in Trados Studio, but it is a bit more complicated (having to create a project, run the analysis, select 99% and then populate and create the final file for Word, translate in Word, update the memory and run the memory in Studio).


 

jacana54 (X)  Identity Verified
Uruguay
English to Spanish
+ ...
Hmmm... Jun 17, 2011

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

And this is a dead end already. SDL Trados Studio has dropped the Word interface alltogether and there is no other modern tool which would be just a Word interface now available AFAIK.


Jerzy, you know a lot more about these things than I do.

However, for many projects I actually prefer to work in Word. For those projects I use MetaTexis, and I have to say that I like it more every day that goes by. All the benefits of Word, none of the hassles of Studio. (This is why last week I couldn't understand why someone would want to translate alexandrine verses in Studio)

Have a great weekend, everyone!



 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:23
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
Corret tools for right things Jun 17, 2011

Lucia Colombino wrote:

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

And this is a dead end already. SDL Trados Studio has dropped the Word interface alltogether and there is no other modern tool which would be just a Word interface now available AFAIK.


Jerzy, you know a lot more about these things than I do.

However, for many projects I actually prefer to work in Word. For those projects I use MetaTexis, and I have to say that I like it more every day that goes by. All the benefits of Word, none of the hassles of Studio. (This is why last week I couldn't understand why someone would want to translate alexandrine verses in Studio)

Have a great weekend, everyone!



A CAT-tool for poetry is most probably not the best choice.
And Word is Word and remains what it is - a great word processor. But it is NOT a CAT-tool and so has its limits. Regardless the interface in Word yxou use (MT, Trados, WF) you will be limited to what you can achieve in Word. And this is next to nothing in terms of CAT.
Of course you can easilly process text in Word and use a TM and even a terminology solution. But what about integrated QA? What about formats other than Word? What about fast dealing with repetitions? Numbers? Multiple TMs? Perfect Match?


 

Selcuk Akyuz  Identity Verified
Turkey
Local time: 08:23
Member (2006)
English to Turkish
+ ...
Correct tool Jun 17, 2011

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

A CAT-tool for poetry is most probably not the best choice.
And Word is Word and remains what it is - a great word processor. But it is NOT a CAT-tool and so has its limits. Regardless the interface in Word yxou use (MT, Trados, WF) you will be limited to what you can achieve in Word. And this is next to nothing in terms of CAT.
Of course you can easilly process text in Word and use a TM and even a terminology solution. But what about integrated QA? What about formats other than Word? What about fast dealing with repetitions? Numbers? Multiple TMs? Perfect Match?


There was a "correct tool" out there, which can do all and more (yes, DVX)! But many Trados users were happy with the Word environment, slow dealing with repetitions, single TM, ...


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:23
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
A correct tool is always the tool of my choice Jun 17, 2011

Selcuk Akyuz wrote:

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

A CAT-tool for poetry is most probably not the best choice.
And Word is Word and remains what it is - a great word processor. But it is NOT a CAT-tool and so has its limits. Regardless the interface in Word yxou use (MT, Trados, WF) you will be limited to what you can achieve in Word. And this is next to nothing in terms of CAT.
Of course you can easilly process text in Word and use a TM and even a terminology solution. But what about integrated QA? What about formats other than Word? What about fast dealing with repetitions? Numbers? Multiple TMs? Perfect Match?


There was a "correct tool" out there, which can do all and more (yes, DVX)! But many Trados users were happy with the Word environment, slow dealing with repetitions, single TM, ...


Yes, you are right - but you have correctly put the accent to "were". I belong to those, who were very happy with Trados Word interface. But this is similar to anything else in the IT. I also was happy with my X286 processor in my first computer ever. And even if I am happy for now with the i7 in my laptop I am quite certain in some years a Q99 or something newer will make me happy...
Neither can nor wish I to stop the development. And if you're honest, the same applies to you (all).


 

Ulf Samuelsson  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 00:23
English to Swedish
+ ...
CAT in Word not the problem Jun 17, 2011

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

Of course you can easilly process text in Word and use a TM and even a terminology solution. But what about integrated QA? What about formats other than Word? What about fast dealing with repetitions? Numbers? Multiple TMs? Perfect Match?


What about integrated QA?
It seems that you aren't very familiar with Wordfast. It has an integrated QA function that is way more customizable and sophisticated than what is found in Trados Studio. Trados is way behind in the QA department. Apart from the normal checking of tags and numbers, you can use up to three different glossaries and have Wordfast verify that the glossary terms are translated per your glossary, if you have a client-approved glossary. You can also add a "blacklist" of terms that should NOT be in the translations, such as older terminology that has changed, special spelling according to the client's style sheet (if words have alternative spellings). I haven't seen any such QA function in Trados. Also, the qoutation marks are automatically replaced by the standard type you have set for the translation segment (you wouldn't have to change each one manually between English and German style). You can have Wordfast check for double spaces, non-breaking spaces with colon or other language-specific rules. You can even add your own macros if you need a specific verification (like checking if a line isn't longer than 55 characters, if there is limited space on a line).

Other formats than Word? Excel and PowerPoint is translated in Word, with a direct link. Html files and many other formats can be tagged and then translated in Word. This is not a limitation of the Word interface in itself. It is a matter of which type of files can be tagged and converted to Word for translation. In Studio, all file formats have to be tagged in order to be translated, and it can sometimes cause problems afterwards, even with Word files (as I noticed once with an urgent file).

Fast dealing with repetitions and numbers? Which CAT doesn't handle repetitions? And numbers are automatically updated in Wordfast.

Multiple TMs? I normally use two TMs with Wordfast, but up to three can be used (though the third one would only provide 100% matches, but can still be searched at the same time as the others.

Perfect match?
No, Wordfast has no function for "Perfect match", though I haven't noticed any big advantage with this feature in Studio. I suppose that the advantage will appear in texts that have, lets say 25% or more matchings as 100%, and I don't do many of those jobs in Studio because they are long-term projects that the agencies are reluctant to phase over to Studio from TWB.

My conclusion is that when I have a choice, I use Wordfast mainly for it's superior QA functions and glossary handling. I wouldn't mind switching to another CAT, if I could find one that can do what Wordfast can do, or can do something useful that Wordfast cannot (useful to me, that is).


 

René Stranz-Nikitin  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 07:23
Czech to German
+ ...
In your opinion, is it the CAT tool (the PM) that should determine what the right segmentation is? Jun 18, 2011

Dear Adam,

Adam Łobatiuk wrote:

Word files translated in Trados and Wordfast are basically the same, but the segmentation sometimes differs.


I saw this "argument" as a means to keep "discipline" among translators (to use the so called "default segmentation" to get the discounts squeezed out of them easier) quite often in discussions here, but I still don't get what it should be based on. Does it say, that it is the project manager (with the chosen CAT tool in his hands), who knows the best segmentation of texts in languages he can not even read?

In Czech as one of my source languages, for example, you can easily find 75% of the full amount of sentences, that have a big number of abbreviations including full stops (such as sb., č., atd.) in the middle of the sentence and I yet have to meet a CAT tool with a proper set of segmentation rules integrated for my source languages. When translators enter segmentation rules to overcome this problem, these rules will differ from translator to translator.

So who is it who knows where the sentence or other meaningful segment really ends: The PM, the CAT tool or the translator?

On which grounds do you want to demand the use of a certain CAT tool for the sake of "proper" segmentation, when quite no CAT is able to segment properly by default?

Different translators will do things differently, and a PM, who is not OK with that, I would simply call an intolerant person, with whom it is difficult to deal with.

All the best!

René Stranz-Nikitin
www.uersn.de

Please note that English is neither my target language nor one of my source languages.


 

Antoní­n Otáhal
Local time: 07:23
Member (2005)
English to Czech
+ ...
back to the basics Jun 18, 2011

The main task is: you get original text and should deliver target text, and the target text should be of good quality.

Different customers want to put their own additional conditions on the delivery, and it is up to the respective translators if they do or do not comply. On the other hand, they may lose some jobs if they refuse illogical requirements.

I do not comply with requirements I feel foolish and I thus do a lot for my peace of mind. I do not think I lose too mu
... See more
The main task is: you get original text and should deliver target text, and the target text should be of good quality.

Different customers want to put their own additional conditions on the delivery, and it is up to the respective translators if they do or do not comply. On the other hand, they may lose some jobs if they refuse illogical requirements.

I do not comply with requirements I feel foolish and I thus do a lot for my peace of mind. I do not think I lose too much money that way, either. But it is each translator's business decision.

Antonin
Collapse


 

Ulf Samuelsson  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 00:23
English to Swedish
+ ...
"Proper segmentation" Jun 18, 2011

René Stranz-Nikitin wrote:

So who is it who knows where the sentence or other meaningful segment really ends: The PM, the CAT tool or the translator?

On which grounds do you want to demand the use of a certain CAT tool for the sake of "proper" segmentation, when quite no CAT is able to segment properly by default?




As for where the segment ends, that is up to the translator to decide (that's why you have the option to expand or shrink segments). And in some CATs, you can provide a list of abbreviations so that segments won't end after those abbreviations.

If the client specifies a certain tool, it is the translator's obligation to use that tool or re-negociate terms for use of another tool. By "proper segmentation" is not necessarily meant "never change the default segmentation". You have to expand segments if they cannot be translated well because of an abbreviation, but in "proper segmentation" is also included whether bullets and numers in numbered lists should be included in the segment or not, and whether beginning and ending tags should be included in the segment or not. Some CATS do and some CATS don't.


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:23
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
Proper usage of a proper tool for a proper task Jun 18, 2011

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

René Stranz-Nikitin wrote:

So who is it who knows where the sentence or other meaningful segment really ends: The PM, the CAT tool or the translator?

On which grounds do you want to demand the use of a certain CAT tool for the sake of "proper" segmentation, when quite no CAT is able to segment properly by default?




As for where the segment ends, that is up to the translator to decide (that's why you have the option to expand or shrink segments). And in some CATs, you can provide a list of abbreviations so that segments won't end after those abbreviations.

If the client specifies a certain tool, it is the translator's obligation to use that tool or re-negociate terms for use of another tool. By "proper segmentation" is not necessarily meant "never change the default segmentation". You have to expand segments if they cannot be translated well because of an abbreviation, but in "proper segmentation" is also included whether bullets and numers in numbered lists should be included in the segment or not, and whether beginning and ending tags should be included in the segment or not. Some CATS do and some CATS don't.


In fact this is where it goes.
The customer has a demand and we are in the position to chose whether we are able and willing to fulfill it or not. Shall we decide to refuse, then we donźt care anymore.
But if we decide to fulfill the demand of the customer, it is OUR obligation to deliver what was ordered.
If I am able to deliver what is requested and use the tool of my choice, then the world is fine. But before you are in the position to do so you MUST understand your tool AND the tool the customer requested to at least 100%.
When I read "Wordfast is 100% compatible to Trados" I must admit, that I doubt really, if the person saying this does understand any of those tools even to 50%.
You can of course use a different tool even if the customers demands another tool, but in case something goes wrong you may not expect any mercy then.

To drag a line under this from my point of view:
- Wordfast is NOT compatible with Trados in general terms
- In some situations you may use tool A and deliver the job for tool B, however then you must have a perfect command of both tool A and B
- If the customer demands tool A, you have to deliver tool A, even if you do not work with it

Coming once again to my favourite car comparisons: Wordfast and Trados are not exactly what ford and Opel would be. You are indeed right, the comparison gasoline and diesel is not the best one. So WF and Trados are like Mercedes A class and Mercedes S class. In certain situations the A class can replace the S class. But if the customer orders a S class in long version he will have reasons - for example a wedding - an A class will most probably not fit, as the wedding dress would fill out the whole car


 

DZiW
Ukraine
English to Russian
+ ...
Ain't this good-for-nothing CAT-fuss is just annoying? Jun 18, 2011

The use of any tool is providing the final product. That’s it.
These two different tools are different just for its internal approach and data handling.
So I can see the only sensible and legitimate reason for asking a specific tool: the client has the same tool and wants to post-process or update the database–the clean-up and a glossary should do. All the rest is a but zested fiction or they want it just as a kind of proof.

Frankly speaking I rather of
... See more
The use of any tool is providing the final product. That’s it.
These two different tools are different just for its internal approach and data handling.
So I can see the only sensible and legitimate reason for asking a specific tool: the client has the same tool and wants to post-process or update the database–the clean-up and a glossary should do. All the rest is a but zested fiction or they want it just as a kind of proof.

Frankly speaking I rather often meet clients who don’t know why they need, say, Trados only. IMO without understanding it’s just an dubious attempt to follow some queer fashion and promote one tool discrediting the other. It's not up to real translators, but to get the picture I'd asked people to name their CATs available

Yet how do translators who don’t use any CATs cope with such nonsense, I wonder? Think they just work just.
Collapse


 

Jerzy Czopik  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:23
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
Indeed I am not an expert in WF Jun 18, 2011

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

Jerzy Czopik wrote:

Of course you can easilly process text in Word and use a TM and even a terminology solution. But what about integrated QA? What about formats other than Word? What about fast dealing with repetitions? Numbers? Multiple TMs? Perfect Match?


What about integrated QA?
It seems that you aren't very familiar with Wordfast. It has an integrated QA function that is way more customizable and sophisticated than what is found in Trados Studio. Trados is way behind in the QA department. Apart from the normal checking of tags and numbers, you can use up to three different glossaries and have Wordfast verify that the glossary terms are translated per your glossary, if you have a client-approved glossary. You can also add a "blacklist" of terms that should NOT be in the translations, such as older terminology that has changed, special spelling according to the client's style sheet (if words have alternative spellings). I haven't seen any such QA function in Trados. Also, the qoutation marks are automatically replaced by the standard type you have set for the translation segment (you wouldn't have to change each one manually between English and German style). You can have Wordfast check for double spaces, non-breaking spaces with colon or other language-specific rules. You can even add your own macros if you need a specific verification (like checking if a line isn't longer than 55 characters, if there is limited space on a line).

Other formats than Word? Excel and PowerPoint is translated in Word, with a direct link. Html files and many other formats can be tagged and then translated in Word. This is not a limitation of the Word interface in itself. It is a matter of which type of files can be tagged and converted to Word for translation. In Studio, all file formats have to be tagged in order to be translated, and it can sometimes cause problems afterwards, even with Word files (as I noticed once with an urgent file).

Fast dealing with repetitions and numbers? Which CAT doesn't handle repetitions? And numbers are automatically updated in Wordfast.

Multiple TMs? I normally use two TMs with Wordfast, but up to three can be used (though the third one would only provide 100% matches, but can still be searched at the same time as the others.

Perfect match?
No, Wordfast has no function for "Perfect match", though I haven't noticed any big advantage with this feature in Studio. I suppose that the advantage will appear in texts that have, lets say 25% or more matchings as 100%, and I don't do many of those jobs in Studio because they are long-term projects that the agencies are reluctant to phase over to Studio from TWB.

My conclusion is that when I have a choice, I use Wordfast mainly for it's superior QA functions and glossary handling. I wouldn't mind switching to another CAT, if I could find one that can do what Wordfast can do, or can do something useful that Wordfast cannot (useful to me, that is).


Sorry, I have overseen that one.
Well, some points remain still:
All the mentioned QA features are clearly provided in Studio.
You can use a glossary for verification and for forbidden terms. You can have a check for multiple spaces and you can even check for intentionally added spaces. You can check language specific punctuation rules, inconsistencies, numbers, repeated words, a specified list of forbidden and allowed words, specific regular expressions and many others.
You can check the segment length for a specified number of characters or you can check the target segment against the source segment, if the customer allows you just as much characters in target as there were in source.
File formats: Word opens directly, PPT and Excel as you say with a link too. HTML must be preprocessed, but what about XML? And what do you do when you need to process QuarkXPress, Framemaker or InDesign? OpenOffice formats? XLIFF?

I do not say Wordfast is bad.
But in my opinion you cannot tell people who seem not to have any experience that Wordfast is fully compatible with Trados (or the other way round), as it is NOT. To make it compatible you need some knowledge. If you have the necessary experience, than you can indeed use any tool of your choice and make any customer happy - but because of your experience you* shouldn't mislead other people.

* Please note, that "you" does not address anyone in person here, but just means "you" as the opposite of "me" - simply all people here


 

René Stranz-Nikitin  Identity Verified
Czech Republic
Local time: 07:23
Czech to German
+ ...
Why translators do have to deal with tags at all? Jun 18, 2011

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:

but in "proper segmentation" is also included whether bullets and numers in numbered lists should be included in the segment or not, and whether beginning and ending tags should be included in the segment or not. Some CATS do and some CATS don't.


That is exactly why I entered this discussion. Is it really the task of a translator to manage tags? Is there really a reasonable ground to exclude a qualified translator from projects he clearly fits to with his specialisations just because he is not willing to play around with tags for free?

Of course, an end client can demand what he wants (also unreasonable things, since he is not a language professional), but when an agency gets unreasonable just because of greed, then I will have my own opinion on that.

I had such a problem some time ago, when I was translating technical regulations of EU countries via an agency. The Commission just needed to get Word documents to be sent back. First everything was OK translating Word documents in Word+TWB (quite logical to translate Word in Word, isn't it?). Later on they lured the cheaper colleagues into translating the same Word documents in TagEditor. It was entirely clear to me, that in this situation I was becoming a minority and that the different segmentation and the segments becoming fuzzy because of the tags from TagEditor would cause a conflict. But really, I couldn't make myself translate Word files in such an unfriendly environment as TagEditor (to Jerzy: please don't elaborate on this now, this is my unchangeable point of view and it has been discussed too often and a further discussion on this would be entirely infertile), since this was simply unreasonable. So I was faded out from those projects for those reasons, but mainly because of rude cuts of the rates to be paid to translators. In fact the whole change was performed just to cut rates.

I think that tags are not subject of a translator's work. Translators are forced to deal with them in a very rude way, but in fact we are stealing work from DTP specialists here and are stealing from ourselves. Not a very professional approach ;-(

We should not deal with tags at all!

Who is enforcing this? Major translation agencies, I believe ...

BR

René Stranz-Nikitin
www.uersn.de

Please note that English is neither my target language nor one of my source languages.


 

Ulf Samuelsson  Identity Verified
Mexico
Local time: 00:23
English to Swedish
+ ...
Tags, the reason for Jun 18, 2011

René Stranz-Nikitin wrote:

I think that tags are not subject of a translator's work. Translators are forced to deal with them in a very rude way, but in fact we are stealing work from DTP specialists here and are stealing from ourselves. Not a very professional approach ;-(

We should not deal with tags at all!

Who is enforcing this? Major translation agencies, I believe ...



The reason for having tags is that the translation isn't being done in the native format of the text. To compensate for the fact that the translation cannot be done directly in InDesign or PowerPoint, for example, there has to be some way to include the formatting of the text in the translation program. You cannot skip the formatting, and it IS the translator's job to indicate which words should be in italics and which should be bold in a text (the typesetter probably doesn't speak your language if the typesetting is done in another country).

So, you're stuck with either translating in the native program or having to work with tags. No other way around it.

The reason for chosing to work with TagEditor rather than directly in Word is most likely because they had noticed that some essential tags were being lost when translating and overtyping directly in Word. The text is the same, but automatic indexing and quick links between pages are easily lost when overtyping in Word, and sometimes it even affects inline imaging. I'm pretty sure that is the real reason for switching to TagEditor, but that is neither here nor there now as the Word interfacing is fading out anyway.


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4] >


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


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

Client specifies Trados - is Wordfast ok?

Advanced search







SDL MultiTerm 2019
Guarantee a unified, consistent and high-quality translation with terminology software by the industry leaders.

SDL MultiTerm 2019 allows translators to create one central location to store and manage multilingual terminology, and with SDL MultiTerm Extract 2019 you can automatically create term lists from your existing documentation to save time.

More info »
Anycount & Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000

Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search