| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Wrong wrong wrong to preclude providers on the basis of which software they use. Thread poster: Anthony Baldwin
|
|---|
Anthony Baldwin 
United States
Local time: 22:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | diversity. important. knowledge is power...drive | Dec 9, 2008 |
bsb_2 wrote:
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]
This is why, for instance, agencies will send me a website to be translated/localized as a word document, instead of sending me the html files. In this case, due to their ignorance, they're creating more work for themselves.
They could send me the html files, which I can translate with OmegaT, and deliver a file completely formatted as the original with no problem whatever and no conversion necessary, but they send a converted word doc, which will then have to be converted back to html
Silly...
A shame that, due to their ignorance of software, technology, file formats, etc., they are precluding providers who DO know these matters and can provide them with excellent work, and efficiently.
How can one work in this industry without at least some level of proficiency with various software, some knowledge of file formats and conversions thereof? Our work is done no computers. One would think that a certain level of tech savvy would be inescapable.
Were I a driver, I would have some knowledge of how a vehicle functions, no?
Some may tell me that a bus driver need know nothing of the motor that drives his vehicle.
But, in this case, the motor is the hardware. I know little, in truth, about computer hardware (although I can install a hard drive, memory chip, replace a motherboard, sound card, etc...I know nothing of how they work), but, I do know how to drive my vehicle. I know the interface afforded me to control the motor...the pedals, the gear shift, the steering wheel.
I also know that not all steering wheels, gear shifts, dashboards, pedals, etc., are the same.
One may have an automatic or a manual, 4 speed, 5 speed, shifting may be on the floor, or on the tree, controls for the wipers may function differently, as well as controls for the head lights, etc., but despite these differences, I understand them enough that I can drive those vehicles.
Of course, were I working for a bus company, they would provide me with a bus. Then I would drive the bus they provide, and without complaint.
As a freelancer, I am more like a owner/driver of a semi-truck delivering goods. The agency doesn't provide my vehicle, so they must allow me to choose the vehicle I wish, configured as I wish. Sure, they can specify that they require a refrigerated trailer...but that's the file format carrying the goods (the product, the translation). So long as my truck can haul that trailer, where is the issue?
I will get the goods to market on time.
[Edited at 2008-12-09 13:29 GMT]
| | | | Anthony Baldwin
United States
Local time: 22:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Open file formats, freedom of choice | Dec 9, 2008 |
Kevin Fulton wrote:
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.
This is why open formats should be used (xliff, tmx, po, odf, etc.).
After all, if the European Commission releases memories for their legislation in open, standard, tmx format, should we not all use such open, standard formats?
open formats, in general
Translation Memory eXchange
Xliff files.
Open document format alliance.
More thoughts on open file formats and software freedoms from a translator.
Understand, using open file formats, of course, has no bearing on the security of information used within them, either.
Confidential information may be maintained just as secure (and in many cases, more secure) using open formats as otherwise.
[Edited at 2008-12-09 13:40 GMT]
| | | | Anthony Baldwin
United States
Local time: 22:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Mulyadi Subali wrote:
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.
This is, of course, precisely what I've done for various Trados using clients for some time, now, and they've never had a complaint.
If this works with those clients, why are those with such a closed mind as to require trados? This I do not understand.
The portability of OmegaT projects, tms, glossaries, etc., and the light weight, efficient interface are awesome.
With OmegaT, I've translated 13,000 word documents in one day (was a long day). So efficient.
And the resultant target file looked just like the source file, only in English, of course.
And Trados can import the tmx memory with something like two clicks of a mouse.
I worked with one such agency for several years. After a while, they were sending me back my own memories to use on projects!
At one point, because I was unavailable for a translation, they sent later the revision, and their other provider had also, clearly, used my translation memories. Obviously, what I was doing for them was working just fine.
| | | | Nikki Graham
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:10
Spanish to English
| New Job Posting Format | Dec 9, 2008 |
I notice that in the new job posting format (beta), SDL TRADOS is first in the CAT tool list. Wouldn't it be better if this list was in alphabetical order? Also, could we have the options "any" and "not applicable"?
I sympathise with the thread poster, and I also feel job posters sometimes include "must use SDL TRADOS" without this specific software actually being necessary.
| | |
|
|
|
Barbara Toffolon (X)
Italy
Local time: 04:10
Italian to English
+ ...
| To CAT or not to CAT that is the question | Dec 9, 2008 |
With regards to the issue of being refused a job for lack of CAT tools, I would like to add that I do not use CAT tools. I have been a freelance translator for over 15 years and quite frankly I have not had the time to see how they work. Firstly, they are terribly expensive and require time to learn; secondly, if I'm so busy that I cannot take the time to learn their workings, then maybe my "old fashion" method is not that bad after all...if the customer is looking for quality. These are my 2... See more With regards to the issue of being refused a job for lack of CAT tools, I would like to add that I do not use CAT tools. I have been a freelance translator for over 15 years and quite frankly I have not had the time to see how they work. Firstly, they are terribly expensive and require time to learn; secondly, if I'm so busy that I cannot take the time to learn their workings, then maybe my "old fashion" method is not that bad after all...if the customer is looking for quality. These are my 2 cents for what they're worth.
 ▲ Collapse
| | | | Kevin Fulton
United States
Local time: 22:10
German to English
| Packaging also specified | Dec 9, 2008 |
This discussion reminded me of a company specification I edited a few months back. It was developed by a large automotive company specifying the packaging vendors must use to supply prototype parts (there was a separate long-standing spec with part requirements). The document not only described the material and color of the packaging, but named acceptable carriers as well. None of these had anything to do with the quality of the parts contained in the packaging.
One of the principle... See more This discussion reminded me of a company specification I edited a few months back. It was developed by a large automotive company specifying the packaging vendors must use to supply prototype parts (there was a separate long-standing spec with part requirements). The document not only described the material and color of the packaging, but named acceptable carriers as well. None of these had anything to do with the quality of the parts contained in the packaging.
One of the principles by which that large companies seem to operate is that headaches should be passed on to the smaller guy. Translators are pretty much at the tail end of the chain. The result is that in many instances we are compelled to use specified tools. I'm not happy about it, but there are other things to be unhappy about, especially if you live the greater Detroit area.
I agree that open source standard formats would make our lives easier, but unfortunately there are too many vested interests to allow easy implementation across the industry. Apparently Across is selling the German automotive industry on the idea that they can respond more flexibly to their needs than other CAT tool vendors. I'm really unexcited about having to use a server-based TM. Too many things can go wrong. Since much of my working day takes place when businesses are closed in Europe, I don't want to have to worry whether whoever is managing the server has someone to monitor / maintain it after normal business hours. I'm sure that Daimler, VW or whoever is responsible for the server has more important corporate IT priorities than keeping translators productive.
I'd also like to address Kevin L's comment regarding collaboration. Indeed, many, if not most, mega-jobs are cattle calls requiring x-million words to be cranked out in y-weeks. The project I was referring to is entering its third year, and although the volume has dropped off substantially in 2008, there's enough work to keep a couple of translators busy for a few days/month. The payment was not a "make it up in volume" rate, in fact in 18 months I made enough to put a healthy down payment on a 3 bedroom townhouse while still keeping most of my local customers. In the meantime, I've come into contact with several skilled translators to whom I've referred work, and some of whom I've used for large projects from direct clients. They, in turn have referred work to me. In the course of the initial collaborative effort we set up a means of communication, structured terminology queries, etc., processes that have carried over into efforts outside the initial project. I'm a believer -- if the right people are involved. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Anthony Baldwin
United States
Local time: 22:10
Portuguese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | and do you use a typewriter, too? | Dec 9, 2008 |
BarbaraT wrote: With regards to the issue of being refused a job for lack of CAT tools, I would like to add that I do not use CAT tools. I have been a freelance translator for over 15 years and quite frankly I have not had the time to see how they work. Firstly, they are terribly expensive and require time to learn; secondly, if I'm so busy that I cannot take the time to learn their workings, then maybe my "old fashion" method is not that bad after all...if the customer is looking for quality. These are my 2 cents for what they're worth.
Personally, I can't imagine working without a CAT tool.
They're not all expensive, in fact, the ones I use can be had for free (OmegaT and Anaphraseus).
I can understand agencies and client requiring the use of a CAT tool for many projects, for efficiencies sake, for
the ability to translate repeated segments only once, etc. I just don't agree that they should preclude providers on the basis of which CAT tool they use.
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 04:10
German to English
+ ...
BarbaraT wrote:
Firstly, they are terribly expensive
OmegaT: $0. But just for you Barbara, half price!
and require time to learn
I guided one colleague through downloading, installation, creation of a project, translation of some random sentences, and output of the result in fifteen minutes (or it might have been ten) - over the phone. You should be able to be productive within two hours. How long it would be before you see actual productivity gains depends largely on the type of texts you translate.
if I'm so busy that I cannot take the time to learn their workings, then maybe my "old fashion" method is not that bad after all...if the customer is looking for quality.
It's just a tool, like a dictionary or Google. In the right hands, it can only enhance quality, not impair it. But if your methods work and are efficient, I agree - why change?
Marc
| | |
|
|
|
Karin Adamczyk (X)
Canada
Local time: 22:10
French to English
Kevin Lossner wrote:
I've heard this segmentation argument raised for years, but the reality is a bit different. In a very large number of Dark Side projects I do with supplied databases, etc. the "natural" segmentation is nonsense anyway; quite a few line breaks occur directly after periods and stuff like that, so I manually adjust the segmentation all the time if I am actually working with that tool. If you take the TM content created by my work and run it against the original file, you won't come anywhere close to getting 100% matches. 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.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
| | | | | Options in the job post forms | Dec 9, 2008 |
Hello all,
I'd like to point out a few aspects of the job posting forms if I may, to make sure we're all talking about the same issues.
It is important to note that the CAT tool option is not a default in either form. In the classic job form, an outsourcer may express a preference for a CAT tool, a requirement for a specific CAT tool, or neither. In the new job form, there is no CAT tool selected by default, and selecting one is not mandatory. Selecting a CAT tool will ... See more Hello all,
I'd like to point out a few aspects of the job posting forms if I may, to make sure we're all talking about the same issues.
It is important to note that the CAT tool option is not a default in either form. In the classic job form, an outsourcer may express a preference for a CAT tool, a requirement for a specific CAT tool, or neither. In the new job form, there is no CAT tool selected by default, and selecting one is not mandatory. Selecting a CAT tool will make it a requirement for quoting on the job. Alphabetizing, or ordering the CAT tool list by popularity of their selection are possible alternatives to the current listing.
Ultimately, the options are placed in the form to allow a job poster to choose in accordance with their needs. Awareness can always be raised as to what making certain choices in the job form may imply, but it is up to the job poster to choose the requirements they desire, if any.
Best regards,
Jared ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Totally different argument | Dec 10, 2008 |
Often, it's just a matter of bringing down the number of translators who will receive the job post notification: if you have a general job in a common language combination, there's A LOT of potential candidates. But ideally, you don't want to post a job to 400 people. I think Proz even has this standard warning that "you WILL be bombarded with replies" or something along those lines. So, you specify the CAT tool(s) with which you're most at ease, just to make the number of likely replies more ma... See more Often, it's just a matter of bringing down the number of translators who will receive the job post notification: if you have a general job in a common language combination, there's A LOT of potential candidates. But ideally, you don't want to post a job to 400 people. I think Proz even has this standard warning that "you WILL be bombarded with replies" or something along those lines. So, you specify the CAT tool(s) with which you're most at ease, just to make the number of likely replies more manageable.
Often, it's that simple. ▲ Collapse
| | | | juvera
Local time: 03:10
English to Hungarian
+ ...
| Simple and simplistic | Dec 13, 2008 |
Susan van den Ende wrote:
Often, it's just a matter of bringing down the number of translators who will receive the job post notification: if you have a general job in a common language combination, there's A LOT of potential candidates. But ideally, you don't want to post a job to 400 people.... So, you specify the CAT tool(s) with which you're most at ease, just to make the number of likely replies more manageable.
Often, it's that simple.
A seemingly convenient way, but most of the time that is the wrong criterion to pre-select candidates by.
That's what the whole discussion is about.
| | | | | 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. | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
