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?
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.
[...] 作者： Riccardo 张贴于： http://thoughtsontranslation.com/2010/01/25/reader-survey-the-best-and-worst-things-about-your-cat-t… [...]