| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Poll: Do you think CAT tools improve the quality of translations? Thread poster: ProZ.com Staff
|
|---|
C. Mouton 
France
Local time: 06:28
Member (2007)
English to French
| a tool is always only as good as its user !!! | Feb 4, 2011 |
I fully agree with Claire Cox and others :
The tool is very helpful to maintain consistency, both in terminology and style.
However, like any tool, from saucepan to airplane, it's only as good as its user.
If you use the CAT tool "by force" and are not familiar with all the options, you're bound to only see its limits, not its strengths!
| | | | C. Mouton
France
Local time: 06:28
Member (2007)
English to French
Philip Lees wrote: Nicole Schnell wrote:
I don't think that the previous posters mixed up CAT tools with machine translation, BTW. No, I didn't. So far, I've been persuaded that, apart from saving time, CAT tools can ensure the consistency of vocabulary in a translation. Whether that constitutes an improvement depends on how conscientious the non-CAT-using translator is (i.e. the basis for comparison), and whether absolute consistency is desirable in a given text, as opposed to making it stilted and repetitive. This jury member is still out.
Well, when you have to deal with projects containing more than 60000 words to translate (not including the fuzzy matches), like I do. It's a great help to have the CAT tool show me the translation I used previously for similar sentences. You don't always HAVE to apply the 100% match offered, you can edit it (this, in my case, depends mainly on the fact I'm paid to edit 100% or not !).
Segments can be split and joined, you can move tags (within limits), etc. So you don't have to be as limited as the machine.
Use it as a help, don't let it do your job!
I've been using 8 different CAT tools for over 16 years now, and no client's ever complained about over-repetitive style or that sort of things.
| | | | Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 21:28
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | I know, Philip | Feb 4, 2011 |
Philip Lees wrote: Nicole Schnell wrote:
I don't think that the previous posters mixed up CAT tools with machine translation, BTW. No, I didn't.
I bet. I was referring to Claire's post:
Claire Cox wrote:
I think the other answerers are missing the point. CAT tools are precisely that: computer-assisted translation, NOT machine translation, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Philip Lees wrote:
So far, I've been persuaded that, apart from saving time, CAT tools can ensure the consistency of vocabulary in a translation. Whether that constitutes an improvement depends on how conscientious the non-CAT-using translator is (i.e. the basis for comparison), and whether absolute consistency is desirable in a given text, as opposed to making it stilted and repetitive.
This jury member is still out.
I am working with direct clients who particularly asked me not to use any CAT tools. One of them even told me that they had fired their translation agency because they were tired of reading identical phrases over and over.
| | | | Claire Cox
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:28
French to English
+ ...
| My assumption | Feb 4, 2011 |
Philip Lees wrote:
Admittedly, my experience of these tools is very limited, but, although I can see how they would be a valuable tool for the translator in certain types of text and could cut down the time required for a given job, I find it hard to imagine how they could improve the quality of a final translation. Rather the reverse, as the auto completion of items is likely to encourage laziness and carelessness in those who have such tendencies
I think it was Philip's use of "auto-completion of items" which led me to believe he was confusing MT with CAT tools. I apologise if this was not the case! I certainly don't use my TM to "auto-complete" segments. My translations are checked fully against the source, whether 100% matches or not and the entire translation is then checked fully against the source and then read on its own as a free-standing text, so any "stiltedness" would certainly be edited out at this stage.
However, I do agree with Nicole and others that, in certain fields, a TM might not lead to greater quality: literary translation I've mentioned before and certainly in more creative or copywriting scenarios. In my particular fields, where safety is a major consideration, be it in nuclear power plants or large manufacturing or transport infrastructures, consistency of terminology and phrasing is essential, so it does matter that I should use the same phrase each time it comes up. In such instances it is not a translator's role to be "creative", but to ensure that the same message is conveyed in exactly the same way each time it occurs - as per the original. Horses for courses.
[Edited at 2011-02-04 10:22 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Laurent KRAULAND (X)
France
Local time: 06:28
French to German
+ ...
| I have to concur on this one | Feb 4, 2011 |
Yasutomo Kanazawa wrote:
Like Claire pointed out, CAT tools are only computer-assisted translation and not machine translation. The bright side may be that they speed up your work, yes. However, she forgets to point out that if the translation memory is messed up, you end up either fixing the whole TM, or go on translating the text with the messed up memory, which most of the time happens when a project is a large and on-going one, where several translators share(d) the same TM, and consistencies of terminologies and style cannot be maintained. And last of all but not the least, the silly discount rates imposed by agencies.
I for one have a particular affection for so-called legacy TM's provided by end clients, which are a patchwork of terms put together over the years, without proper maintenance.
How can one possibly assess the quality of such TM's or use them? Especially when the end client provides an equally voluminous glossary for words, expressions etc. that were never updated in their TM's... and for which the agency will nevertheless require fuzzy matches discounts.
I say, light my (f)ire!
| | | | | Makes it ten times worse! | Feb 4, 2011 |
The use of CAT tools DEFINITELY lower the quality, but it can improve consistency within technical translations, just as it kills variation and decreases the vocabulary in use.
| | | | | just something more | Feb 4, 2011 |
A tool does not improve the quality of a translation, and in some fields it cannot even be used.
Where consistency is important, well it helps obviously the translator is the main factor. so I would say it improves ONE aspect of SOME kinds of translations
| | | | | Depends how you use them... | Feb 4, 2011 |
I'm surprised to read people posting negative comments about CAT tools. Fine if you don't want to use them, but I find Wordfast an invaluable part of my translation process.
It segments the document, which is extremely useful when translating documents with complicated formatting, such as financial statements containing tables (which I've just been working on). You don't miss any text that might be tucked away somewhere (or even hidden by a formatting error).
It allows ... See more I'm surprised to read people posting negative comments about CAT tools. Fine if you don't want to use them, but I find Wordfast an invaluable part of my translation process.
It segments the document, which is extremely useful when translating documents with complicated formatting, such as financial statements containing tables (which I've just been working on). You don't miss any text that might be tucked away somewhere (or even hidden by a formatting error).
It allows translation memories to be consulted, which, of course, needs to be done with care. I find the glossary function of more use than the TM as I can refer to terms that I have researched or load terms that have been supplied by the client. You can have multiple options in the glossary, so if you choose to consult it you can select the most appropriate (or none).
My working sequence is:
1. Load the document into Wordfast and translate on a first pass through (I rarely read the whole of a document before I begin translating, but leave troublesome phrases to come back to, dropping in a few **** to highlight where attention is needed).
2. After my first pass I spell check then go back through the document. This is another place where I think CAT tools improve quality, because I now have the source and target text alongside each other in manageable segments. My main focus is on improving the structure of my English text, but I have the source right there to refer to.
3. I save the translated file and read through the target text in the format it will be sent to the client. This is essential, because sentences that worked well in isolation in a segment may need some adjustment in the context of the passage containing them. If it needs a fair bit of improvement, I'll make the changes back in the CAT tool, partly to update my TM. Otherwise I'll just work on the Word document I have created.
4. I do a final spell and grammar check - and make sure I haven't left any **** unresolved. Then it is done.
Occasionally I have to do jobs where I go back to working with split windows or print offs, and I hate it! So much so I have a pdf converter programme so I can create a Word document to use with my CAT tool.
[Edited at 2011-02-04 11:28 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Nicole Schnell
United States
Local time: 21:28
English to German
+ ...
In memoriam | I can relate to that! | Feb 4, 2011 |
Claire Cox wrote:
In my particular fields, where safety is a major consideration, be it in nuclear power plants or large manufacturing or transport infrastructures, consistency of terminology and phrasing is essential, so it does matter that I should use the same phrase each time it comes up.
I write a lot for the mining industry, the military, space flight and such. On the other hand I have, as the long-term translator, survived generations of marketing managers who are all too eager to change all internal terminology and who render all your lovingly maintained TMs useless.
| | | | | 64,000 ? question | Feb 4, 2011 |
Claire Cox wrote:
I think it was Philip's use of "auto-completion of items" which led me to believe he was confusing MT with CAT tools. I apologise if this was not the case! I certainly don't use my TM to "auto-complete" segments. My translations are checked fully against the source, whether 100% matches or not and the entire translation is then checked fully against the source and then read on its own as a free-standing text, so any "stiltedness" would certainly be edited out at this stage.
This is the key for me. It's that final review of the translation as a "free-standing text" that ultimately determines its quality, to a much greater degree than anything that's gone before.
In my particular fields, where safety is a major consideration, be it in nuclear power plants or large manufacturing or transport infrastructures, consistency of terminology and phrasing is essential, so it does matter that I should use the same phrase each time it comes up. In such instances it is not a translator's role to be "creative", but to ensure that the same message is conveyed in exactly the same way each time it occurs - as per the original. Horses for courses.
Of course. 
But now here's the 64,000 [insert currency here] question - and I apologise, Claire, in advance for this: If, for some reason, you had to do a translation job without using your CAT tools, would you expect the result to be of lower quality than your usual work?
| | | | Karen Chalmers
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:28
Member (2011)
Spanish to English
I am an avid user of Wordfast Anywhere, which allows me to tweak translations from wherever I may be (as long as I have internet access, of course!). It often doesn't save me any time as the texts I translate generally require a high degree of cultural interpretation, but it does ensure that I don't miss any of the source text. The TM is often pretty useless to me as there are few direct translations applicable to the texts I work with, but I find having the source and target texts on one screen... See more I am an avid user of Wordfast Anywhere, which allows me to tweak translations from wherever I may be (as long as I have internet access, of course!). It often doesn't save me any time as the texts I translate generally require a high degree of cultural interpretation, but it does ensure that I don't miss any of the source text. The TM is often pretty useless to me as there are few direct translations applicable to the texts I work with, but I find having the source and target texts on one screen reduce mental and physical stress, which of course has the knock-on effect of improving the quality of my work. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | typing machine | Feb 4, 2011 |
An older friend told me once this discussion was held some time ago in terms of using computers instead of good old typing machines. The same goes for Internet comparison instead of good old „paper“ vocabularies. I come from a technocratic generation and I cannot imagine translating without CAT tools - I simply never did that. When I have started some 10 years ago the CAT tools had already been there. Maybe it is possible to translate 10 000 words in two days in decent quality without CAT to... See more An older friend told me once this discussion was held some time ago in terms of using computers instead of good old typing machines. The same goes for Internet comparison instead of good old „paper“ vocabularies. I come from a technocratic generation and I cannot imagine translating without CAT tools - I simply never did that. When I have started some 10 years ago the CAT tools had already been there. Maybe it is possible to translate 10 000 words in two days in decent quality without CAT tools, but it is hard to imagine. With good tools, like CAT, terminology management, user vocabularies, automatic QA-check and regular expresions one can manage to do it on daily basis. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Simone Linke
Germany
Local time: 06:28
Member (2009)
English to German
+ ...
| Absolutely yes | Feb 4, 2011 |
I can't believe some people voted No on this question. The question doesn't refer to someone's skills or to the fluency of translations or similar. It simply asks: Do CAT tools improve the quality of translations?
Of course, they do. But as others have already pointed out, you'll have to use them where and how it's appropriate.
Think of CAT tools like cars. Put a drunk driver (i.e. an unskilled translator) behind the wheel, and you'll get roadkill or worse. No one will... See more I can't believe some people voted No on this question. The question doesn't refer to someone's skills or to the fluency of translations or similar. It simply asks: Do CAT tools improve the quality of translations?
Of course, they do. But as others have already pointed out, you'll have to use them where and how it's appropriate.
Think of CAT tools like cars. Put a drunk driver (i.e. an unskilled translator) behind the wheel, and you'll get roadkill or worse. No one will enjoy the ride.
And if you're a skilled driver but you bump into a ghost driver on the highway (i.e. somebody else messed up your legacy TM), there's not much you can do about it either.
Also, if some people want to go for a walk (i.e. do a literary translation), there's no reason to force them to sit down in a car!
And don't tell me you prefer the ancient times of Egypt (where slaves had to carry the building blocks for pyramids) over modern times where trucks carry the heavy stuff.
Cars have disadvantages, sure, but they also help you be home with your family sooner after a long day of work, they take you to locations you might never be able to reach on foot, and they make it much simpler to get from A to B in time.
Instead of putting the blame on the cars, how about making them better and yet more efficient and environmentally friendly? And how about educating drivers AND pedestrians AND the Department of Transportation (read: translators and clients and agencies) about what a car (CAT tool) is, what it does and what it's not supposed to do?! ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Quantity versus quality | Feb 4, 2011 |
Simone Linke wrote:
I can't believe some people voted No on this question.
Not just "some people" - comfortably over 50% so far.
Think of CAT tools like cars. Put a drunk driver (i.e. an unskilled translator) behind the wheel, and you'll get roadkill or worse. No one will enjoy the ride.
And giving the drunk a better car is not likely to affect the quality of the driving, but that isn't the point.
Cars have disadvantages, sure, but they also help you be home with your family sooner after a long day of work, they take you to locations you might never be able to reach on foot, and they make it much simpler to get from A to B in time.
You're talking about quantity and ease, though, not quality. Travelling by car may be a good way of covering a lot of ground in a short time, but if you're on foot you notice things you'd never see from a car.
Of course, using a word processor makes my translation work much easier and faster than if I had to use an old fashioned manual typewriter, but does it improve the quality of the end result? I think not.
| | | | Claire Cox
United Kingdom
Local time: 05:28
French to English
+ ...
| Hypothetical question | Feb 4, 2011 |
Philip Lees wrote:
But now here's the 64,000 [insert currency here] question - and I apologise, Claire, in advance for this: If, for some reason, you had to do a translation job without using your CAT tools, would you expect the result to be of lower quality than your usual work?
In answer to your hypothetical question, of course I would like to think not - and if I were doing a short text of a couple of 1000 words, then I'm sure it wouldn't. However, I would find it hard to guarantee to the client that I'd used exactly the same phrasing as had been used before and it would undoubtedly take me longer if I hadn't worked in that particular field for a while and had to check terminology manually (assuming of course that if I didn't have my CAT tool, I also wouldn't have access to electronic glossaries!). On a longer job, say of 30,000 word or more, I know I couldn't guarantee that level of consistency without a CAT tool - with the best will in the world, on a document of that lengfth, you're ineviatably going to use slightly different phrasing or a different word. For me it would be a retrograde step. I'm not saying I couldn't do it and I'm sometimes work on-site for a client where I don't have access to my CAT tools, so I do have to work that way. My preference is to work with Wordfast though, because I think it produces a better quality result.
| | | | | 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 » Poll: Do you think CAT tools improve the quality of translations? | Protemos translation business management system | Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
