TM-Europe 2010_Mixing online+offline projects

The Best of Two Worlds: Mixing Online & Offline Projects

Gabor Faragotranslation technology architect

espell group, Hungary

CAT tools: Current challenges

• Identify balanced set of CAT/TMS requirements & development directions– Large LSPs and corporate translation depts.– Smaller & medium-sized LSPs and their PMs– Translators (in-house & freelance)

• Find common ground to drive tool development (ideal: pluggable, interoperable tools and extensions)

• How to avoid a “Blu-ray vs. HD DVD”-like deadlock or the “VHS vs. Betamax” effect

TM-Europe 2010 The Best of Two Worlds: Mixing Online & Offline Projects Gábor Faragó, espell group 2

2nd generation CAT tools• SDL Trados leading the first generation

– Primary LSP CAT environment with few other tools to be supported for diverse needs

– Wide translator acceptance• SDL Trados Studio 2009 is not an

immediate replacement for T2007, the two must coexist for a while

• Migration to a 2nd generation tool important for better collaboration & workflow


LSP concerns• Does this mean LSPs have to support:

SDL Trados 2007+2009Other preferred 2nd generation collaborative/online tool(s)Lionbridge TW, GlobalSight, whatever the client prefers?

• Will there be a set of standard-based, highly interoperable tools (a “CAT Blu-ray”)?

• Will cloud/SaaS with a browser interface be the winning paradigm?

• Cloud resistance: lack of rich workbench feature set & safe integration of local language resources, limited customization


TM-Europe 2010 The Best of Two Worlds: Mixing Online & Offline Projects

Gábor Faragó, espell group 5

CAT tool functionality

CAT feature tuning

Twist & turn until you get everyone satisfied?

LSP

PM Translator


Mission impossible.

CAT feature tuning


A different angle:

Clients & corporate translation departments

CAT feature tuning

Who has the most power to drive changes?• Smaller translation buyers are usually not interested in

what is “under the hood”• Large LSPs & corporate buyers/users have strong

leverage on tools & functionality• Some smaller but proactive clients turn to easy-to-use,

low-footprint XLIFF/TMX-based CAT tools• Translator/PM contribution extremely useful for improving

productivity, but needs to be pulled by developers (while high-level input may result in fancy functionality that is not so much useful)


Too much on our plate...


Across

Syn

ergy

Star TransitWorld Server

SD

LX

memoQ

SDL Trados Studio 2009

SDL Trados 2007 Suite

Swordfish

Sis

uliz

erMadCap

MLV clients

“Playful”clients

Core tools

Feature set strongly influenced by...

• Translators: Déjà Vu, Wordfast, memoQ• Large LSPs & corporate buyers:

SDL Trados, STAR Transit• LSP PM & workflow requirements:

XTM, memoQ 4.x, SDL Trados Studio 2009


TMS integration

• CSA: memoQ & XTM leading 2nd generation TM products with good TMS integration

• Plunet, XTRF, Beetext Flow MMX prove that integration works

• TMS without business integration (mainly file/project packaging and workflow) failed to win hearts & minds


What is the winning combination?

• Large LSP paired with CAT tool:– SDL + Trados– Lionbridge + Translation Workspace– Welocalize + GlobalSight– STAR + Transit

• CAT tool paired with TMS:– XTM + XTRF– memoQ + Plunet/XTRF/LTC Worx– All 3 elements combined: SDL Trados + Plunet




Architecture

Architecture

Desktop client only

Server – heavyweight client

Server – browser client

SaaS/cloud – editor on client

SaaS/cloud – full browser interface


Architecture: Buyers• Many clients rely on language vendors for CAT

technology; whether it is hosted by the LSP or a SaaS provider probably makes no big difference

• A web-based architecture suits well any functionality exposed to the end-customer (e.g. customer portal, queries & issue tracking, terminology input/review)

• Smaller buyers with in-house translation departments usually have SDL Trados but cloud/SaaS may be attractive as a low-cost, small-footprint option especially at the entry level


Architecture: LSPs• Cloud/SaaS may be a big step due to fear of uncertainty:

– No track record yet with service levels and risk of disruptions– Fear to hand over valuable language assets, TMs, termbases

• Server-client hosted by LSP:– No 24x7 hosting experience, yet freelancers work during late hours

and on week-ends– Server farm hosting a must unless FTO available– Already have servers for project mgmt sw, FTP, e-mail

• Main selling point for Cloud/SaaS:– Want to keep lean organization (LSPs with no major infrastructure)

• Main selling points for server-client:– Online & collaborative workflows for fast turnaround & efficiency– Keeping control over technology & linguistic resources, more

customization & integration options, avoid vendor lock-inTM-Europe 2010 The Best of Two Worlds: Mixing Online & Offline Projects Gábor Faragó, espell group 16

Architecture: Translators• Resistance from power CAT user translators against any new tool:

– Already invested heavily in productivity-increasing shortcuts & macros– Extensive collection of valuable language assets, TMs, termbases– Any new pricing scheme perceived as implicit fee reduction – Learning curve; temptation to tweak & use Trados or other CAT favourite

• Server-client:– Fear of lags, downtime & loss of productivity– Fail-over to local TM possible, but problems with floating licenses– Need to use own industry-specific termbases/TMs, initial hassle of

normalization for exporting + import– Reactions from outright refusal to praising immediate productivity gains

• Cloud/SaaS:– Subscription & tenancy in multiple systems to accommodate diverse

customers (Lionbridge TW, XTM Cloud, SDL Trados Starter Edition): not so costly but not efficient either; community approach attractive

– Intellectual property concerns with uploading “own” local termbases, TMs




Managing change

Managing change


Scared of sacred cows?

• Some of the best, most seasoned translators may go on strike

• Do not be scared; provide as much support for the new CAT tool to your translators as possible

• Faster is less painful; never let fear dictate your technology choices

• However, a more gradual transition could be in your best interest, too


Managing the change with SDL Trados Studio 2009

• Good, hassle-free project packaging with very efficient merge & split

• Plain offline workflow with online TMs, terminology and MT providers

• Some minor problems compared to T2007– Stricter HTML parsing rejects some files– INI file importing not always smooth– Inline tag import from T2007 TMX or TTX still

leaves room for improvement


Managing the change with SDL Trados Studio 2009

• Good DTP filters (FrameMaker, InDesign)• No new collaboration features (online projects,

chat/forum): good or bad news?– Multilevel vendor structure not geared at online projects

& collaboration

• Problems with mixed environments:– Translators on T2007 : Preferred TTX workflow

cumbersome, hope TTX It! helps– MS Word workflow discouraged, bilingual Word files

obsolete– Translate SDLXLIFF in another tool? Not worth it


Managing the change with memoQ

• Good, hassle-free project packaging; some limitations with views still to be eliminated

• Excellent workflow options, online and offline projects, mix of server and local resources, online projects with desktop docs

• Smooth migration from T2007– TMX import excellent, including inline tags– Easy termbase editing, base form support– Great XML filter (can populate tags)


Managing the change with memoQ

• DTP filters need improvement and support latest versions mainly

• Excellent collaboration features (online projects, chat/forum/live comments)

• Problems with mixed environments:– Trados bilingual file interchange supported but

import often does not work – WIP– TM metadata juggling

• Different word counts & fuzzy match values




Offline, online, collaborative, cascade

Workflow options• Offline workflow, offline TM

– Good packaging & workflow support in 2nd gen CAT tools– Suitable for 1 translator per language– No direct access required to linguists at the vendor LSP,

which some LSPs are reluctant to grant– Linguists & PMs are accustomed to it– Online forum can still give some “collaboration feel”– Lack of progress visibility

• Offline workflow, online TM– More translators/language: benefits of online leveraging– OK for 1 language but handoff/delivery too complex for

many languages and linguists


Workflow options• Online workflow (sequential), online TM

– Neatly manageable– Productivity gains, inter-language collaboration– Needs translator buy-in and stable infrastructure

• Online workflow (cascade), online TM– Excellent for rush projects– Terminology problems captured & fixed almost

immediately, preventing propagation and saving editing/ review time + effort

– In projects spanning several domains, subject area experts can be easily involved (e.g. IT + finance)

– Real-time collaboration, real benefits



Instant TM matches

Moderated terminology

Online forumdiscussions

Segment-levelcomments

Some points to note

• 2nd generation CAT tools require more thinking on the PM’s part and more careful preparation

• Benefits include smoother execution and faster overall turnaround time

• Aim at better quality in the translation phase; smart preparation, collaboration, client Q+A and real-time QA reduce errors and correction time

• Translators LOVE segment-level comments while completely IGNORE any instructions & other guidance




Strategic choices

2nd generation benefits• Rich translation workbench functionality in a

more integrated environment• Free to mix multiple online & offline MTs,

termbases, MT/terminology providers and searchable resource collections

• Workflow efficiencies on the LSP/PM side• Open standards support (TMX, TBX, SRX,

XLIFF) – hopefully not just lip service• Online collaboration & new workflows


Workflow transition

• Ready to jump-start with a turnkey SaaS/cloud solution?

• Want a more gradual transition by freely choosing & mixing offline/online workflows?

• Not interested in online projects and collaboration?

Personal opinion: Choose the solution that keeps the most options open for you


Recommendations• Analyze all possible requirements & file formats

before making a decision• Software and content localization requires

– Direct DTD/filter manipulation for XML, CMS formats and any resources with inline tags, placeholders, entities etc.

– String/resource ID context for ICE– Smart length checking as part of QA– Parsing non-translatables like %s, {0}, \n that are not

<tags>; regexp parsing may be useful– Comments visible during translation, tag context visibility

• DTP: Test filters for all file formats, including any older versions still used by clients


Architecture & tool choice• Online collaboration is not just a buzzword –

it is a real life-saver for huge volumes with short deadlines

• Cloud and SaaS relieve you from hosting technology but may seem restrictive to LSPs accustomed to in-premise technology

• Fallback to offline packages safer than online only• However, technology convergence may happen at

the online level as cloud/SaaS appeals to end-customers


There is no such animal...

• Smart, simple, intuitive, no deployment• Comprehensive, customisable, adaptable• Backwards compatible and future-proof

But I know the closest thing... TM-Europe 2010 The Best of Two Worlds: Mixing Online & Offline Projects Gábor Faragó, espell group 35

Thank You!

[email protected]

Technology

TM-Europe 2010_Mixing online+offline projects