| Páginas sobre el tema: < [1 2 3] > | | Usuario | Autor de la hebra: Pascale Pluton Studio 2009 - How to modify text in source segment |
|---|
SDL Support 
Local time: 10:47
inglés
| | This is understood | Dec 30, 2011 |
Hi Jerzy,
I do understand where you are coming from... and to some extent this debate is wasted because we will be making source editable as I have already said.
However, the point here is not that you are being treated as a child. It is that for many users the allowance of this is completely unnacceptable for commercial and project management reasons. This will not change, so I fully expect to see that it will in some cases still not be possible to do this as the Project Manager will have locked down this possibility and will expect you to operate under their own workflow.
If you have your own customers who give you the source documents in the first place then you will be able to do whatever you like in this regard.
This is hypothetical now but I think that when you are working under the conditions of the locked down project then I don't think it is your choice at all. You need to be working using the guidelines you have been given. I would think that if this is unnacceptable to you then don't take the work or do whatever you are able to do so that you can live with it.
Regards
Paul
|  |  |
| | | | Grzegorz Gryc
Local time: 10:47
francés al polaco
+ ...
| | As always, a decent text editor... | Dec 30, 2011 |
SDL Support wrote:
jimshanks wrote:
As far as I am aware SDL do not believe translators should change source text and there is no way to do it. Nor do I believe that they are planning to introduce this in any of their software. |
|
So the solution, for our userbase, may be to allow this but also provide controls to prevent it within a Project if desired (pending GG posting a workaround on how to avoid this  ). |
|
As long SDLXLIFF is a XML file with no tricky control (getting the Studio code heavier and slower...), everything is possible.
In fact, it's technically possible to open the SDLXLIFF in a decent text editor (let's say, Notepad++), then make the desired changes and reopen the modded file in Studio but it's a pain in the arse from the usability point of view.
I tested this brute force SDLXLIFF editing scenario successfully but, IMO, it's frankly better to use some CAT hopping scenario, let's say memoQ or DVX.
It's simply faster and easier.
| This will happen in a future release; and not too far into the future. So I am hopeful we will see this next year. |
|
In fact, Studio is a step back if compared to TagEditor where the source change is possible, so the next year we'll see (?) another SDL Wheel with four or even five angles trumpeted as another innovation delivered 
Catspeed
GG
| | |
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Alemania
Local time: 10:47
  Miembro 2003
polaco al alemán
+ ...
| | Studio is a big step forward... | Dec 30, 2011 |
Grzegorz Gryc wrote:
...
In fact, Studio is a step back if compared to TagEditor where the source change is possible, so the next year we'll see (?) another SDL Wheel with four or even five angles trumpeted as another innovation delivered
... |
|
In fact I very well know your attitude towards SDL products and especially towards TagEditor, so indeed it wonders me you consider it being superior to Studio just for this reason.
TBH many (if not most) translators do not even know what is meant by cut and paste segments together. So taking just this only feature as a reason to place TagEditor over the abilities of Studio is a bit exaggerated.
As for CAT hoping: I can't talk about DVX as I do not use it. So left DVX alone, the only other tool being able to compete with Studio is MemoQ. But it is not superior to Studio. MemoQ might be a good one, especially when it comes to avoiding the necessity to use Transit, but in overall performance I prefer Studio. It brings the results I need faster and it has a much clearer concept - everything being accessible at once, as opposed to MemoQ, where many advanced settings are perfectly hidden.
Now I take Paul's word for granted and wait for merging ability over segment boundaries. This, accompanied by some other minor improvements, will make Studio even more powerful.
Happy cathoping
Greeting to Cracow, my home town
Jerzy
| | |
| | | | Grzegorz Gryc
Local time: 10:47
francés al polaco
+ ...
| | Altered States of Trados... | Dec 30, 2011 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
(...)
With TagEditor I was at least able to cut and paste sentences together, leaving empty segments (or inserting something there which could be easily removed after the target file has been produced). Now in Studio I can't.
So if I get a file from the customer, where I have
Hexagon
screw
I need to translate it into Polish like this
Śruba z łbem
sześciokątnym
where you get the word screw for hexagon and hexagon for screw.
Then you have:
Hexagon
nut
and your TM (a PM will of course use the cleanup and pretranslation) will deliver:
Hexagon
Śruba z łbem
with your additional translation
nakrętka
This reads in English:
Screw with head
nut
This is a really perfect translation - but nearly 80% of all customers do not see the problem! |
|
My belowed example is:
United
States
which gives in Polish, French, Spanish etc. something like
States
United.
So, one receives 100% matches States = United etc.
I love this kind of control driven "don't touch my segmentation" Trados customers.
I ride my another CAT, I join/modify my sentences as I like, the translation makes sense (I report honestly various segmentation problems and tell 'em to clean up the TM accordingly).
In most cases they don't do and I have an opportunity to contest the TM quality the next time, i.e. I renegotiate the rates
In this way, Trados makes me earn a lot of money
Cheers
GG
| | |
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Alemania
Local time: 10:47
Miembro 2003
polaco al alemán
+ ...
| | This are just customers, not Trados | Dec 30, 2011 |
Grzegorz Gryc wrote:
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
(...)
With TagEditor I was at least able to cut and paste sentences together, leaving empty segments (or inserting something there which could be easily removed after the target file has been produced). Now in Studio I can't.
So if I get a file from the customer, where I have
Hexagon<br>
screw
I need to translate it into Polish like this
Śruba z łbem<br>
sześciokątnym
where you get the word screw for hexagon and hexagon for screw.
Then you have:
Hexagon<br>
nut
and your TM (a PM will of course use the cleanup and pretranslation) will deliver:
Hexagon<br>
Śruba z łbem<br>
with your additional translation
nakrętka
This reads in English:
Screw with head<br>
nut
This is a really perfect translation - but nearly 80% of all customers do not see the problem! |
|
My belowed example is:
United<br>
States
which gives in Polish, French, Spanish etc. something like
States<br>
United.
So, one receives 100% matches States = United etc.
I love this kind of control driven "don't touch my segmentation" Trados customers.
I ride my another CAT, I join/modify my sentences as I like, the translation makes sense (I report honestly various segmentation problems and tell 'em to clean up the TM accordingly).
In most cases they don't do and I have an opportunity to contest the TM quality the next time, i.e. I renegotiate the rates
In this way, Trados makes me earn a lot of money
Cheers
GG |
|
The thing is, that this has nothing to do with Trados or any other CAT tool. AFAIK the only tool allowing you to merge segments over paragraph boundaries is DVX. As already said, I will not talk about this, as I do not know it.
But take Across, MemoQ, Transit or Wordfast (AFAIK), and you will end up with exactly the same problem.
This is a general problem of understanding language engineering.
In answer to Paul's answer I would like to add, that finding myself in the middle of a process where I cannot influence anything makes me feel being treated like a child. This because the process most certainly does not match the needs of Polish as target language. So in such situation I would indeed expect the customer to be willing to learn instead of imposing their way of view over other people. This is some kind of a dictatorship and something I am really reluctant to accept. We should be partners and translators remarks regarding the segmentation, like Grzegorz's or mine should be indeed taken into consideration and not just wiped away because of the process sake. The process can be modified, cannot it? So please help us to educate customers, providing us a tool with all the necessary degrees of freedom. What I indeed very much like about Studio is, that it already has so many degrees of freedom, which I for example fail to find in the competing software. Please just enter some more and the software will be even better
Such software could allow us to change the name of the profession from translator to language engineer
| | |
| | | | Pascale Pluton
Países Bajos
Local time: 10:47
Miembro 2005
inglés al francés
+ ...
PERSONA QUE INICIÓ LA HEBRA | | Are we language experts or mere TM operators? | Dec 30, 2011 |
Clapping for you Jerzy when you say "So in such situation I would indeed expect the customer to be willing to learn instead of imposing their way of view over other people.".
As for the rest I agree with you but was unfortunately too busy to contribute to this thread.
We are indeed the one knowing what the audience need.
I would therefore like to consider myself as a partner to the one who wants his document to be translated.
Our knowledge is the guarantee of a proprer end result.
The machine we use to translate is just a tool. It should make sure that all silly and repetitive tasks are taken care of by the computer because that is what computers are good at. Letting us to concentrate on what we are good at.
Processes are just a mean to an end. They are not holy and should not stand in the way of a good translation. I am sure we are intelligent enough to use our freedom correctly. We are no children anymore aren´t we!
Pascale
| | | | John Fossey
Canadá
Local time: 04:47
Miembro 2008
francés al inglés
|
SDL Support wrote:
Our business is built around many customers and despite the personal viewpoints of some of the users in here I can assure you that allowing this without controls is not something the majority of our customers want or need. If it was then I can also assure you that we would have done it by now.
So it is not up to us at all. We are guided by the needs of all our users and allowing this with a simple F2 or similar is not something that would be found acceptable at all for the majority.
|
|
That's quite a statement. Does SDL have any data from the majority of users/buyers of SDL CAT tools to indicate that most of them do not accept having the ability to modify the source text? Many users/buyers of SDL CAT tools could well have difficulty accepting this statement as fact.
A big problem with being unable to edit the source text is corrupted TMs being saved. A source segment with a typo will not come up as a 100% match when it should. Besides, most translators will protect the original document by working on a copy of the file, so we are not affecting the true "source" document.
Regarding segments breaking across paragraph marks, Wordfast Classic and any other MS Word based CAT, as well as TagEditor, permits editing of paragraph marks before they have been translated.
Actually, TagEditor is a perfect example of the ability to edit the source text - while it's not a "simple F2" - you have to turn off protection - it's still simple enough to be effective.
| | |
| | | | Grzegorz Gryc
Local time: 10:47
francés al polaco
+ ...
| | Generally, everything is better than TagEditor... | Dec 30, 2011 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
Grzegorz Gryc wrote:
...
In fact, Studio is a step back if compared to TagEditor where the source change is possible, so the next year we'll see (?) another SDL Wheel with four or even five angles trumpeted as another innovation delivered
... |
|
In fact I very well know your attitude towards SDL products and especially towards TagEditor, so indeed it wonders me you consider it being superior to Studio just for this reason.
TBH many (if not most) translators do not even know what is meant by cut and paste segments together. So taking just this only feature as a reason to place TagEditor over the abilities of Studio is a bit exaggerated. |
|
Well, I always stated TagEditor was a crappy translation environment and it's no need to persuade me Studio is indeed a big progress
These environments simply can't be compared.
Simply, the TagEditor look and feel remember early 1990s, which means precambrian in the IT stuff.
So, most modern environment (including Studio) are by default better than TE (so why I many years ago I shifted to Déjà Vu...) but TagEditor (and generally the "legacy" Trados) has still some strong points where it is still superior to some tools (including Studio).
The source editing is one of them.
The fact Studio doesn't handle the source editing is a step back...
| As for CAT hoping: I can't talk about DVX as I do not use it. So left DVX alone, the only other tool being able to compete with Studio is MemoQ. But it is not superior to Studio. MemoQ might be a good one, especially when it comes to avoiding the necessity to use Transit, but in overall performance I prefer Studio. It brings the results I need faster and it has a much clearer concept - everything being accessible at once, as opposed to MemoQ, where many advanced settings are perfectly hidden. |
|
Well, it's very personal.
I simply prefer memoQ 'cause it's closer to the DVX philosophy.
Generally, I think memoQ is better and easier for a beginner but some Studio features (e.g. inserting custom tags) are frankly superior now, so the choice is not easy.
| Now I take Paul's word for granted and wait for merging ability over segment boundaries. |
|
We're asking this feature from eternity, so I hope Paul has a good source of information
Happy new year from Cracow
Catspeed
GG
[Edited at 2011-12-30 18:48 GMT]
| | |
| | | | DocteurPC
Canadá
Local time: 04:47
Miembro 2005
inglés al francés
+ ...
| | Editing source is a MUST, not something to lock the translators from. | Jan 5, 2012 |
I joined this forum, because I am presently working on a HUGE Excel file, with hundreds of worksheets and more formatting than Microsoft thought possible and I tried to find a solution to my problem.
Some of the files have #REF to other files which are NOT available to me and SDLX will not export to a clean Excel file because of those. In fact, it exports back to the source after any of those cross-references, i.e. the rest of the file is NOT translated, even though it's in my TM.
I have tried finding those references in the worksheets, without success, so editing the original is NOT an option. If I have to cut and paste thousands of segments, I would have been better off NOT doing it in SDLX and doing it directly in Excel, which is also a pain.
A simple solution, such as editing the source segment would solve the problem - or even just erasing the line would do the job, but there's no way to do that.
Even if we had to click twice (or 3 times if you want) to be allowed to make such changes - even if such changes were clearly marked on the project so an agency could see that it was done (no surprise), it would still make our life simpler.
The end client often does not understand why this should be a problem, but it certainly is a problem for us, the translators. He/she simply wants a clean Excel (or Word or PowerPoint) file.
| | |
| | | | Enrico C - ECLC
Taiwán
Local time: 16:47
Miembro 2011
inglés al italiano
+ ...
| | Source editing should be available | Feb 25, 2012 |
I used that function almost in all my projects, to merge sentences (Something Studio only allows in a very limited amount of cases), to fix segmentation issues (and therefore increase my rates for the extra work done).
I don't understand how can SDL tell users source editing can result into non recoverable wastes of time, while i am actually wasting huge amounts of time opening sources with other tools to modify them.
SDLs assumption that projects shouldn't be modified is based on the utopic idea projects material comes clean and ready but reality is translating companies often allocate projects in a very messed up way that require lots of changes and modifications for the translation to be workable. In that SDL preventing me from changing the source (Because their choices are driven by other users that don't need this function) is limiting my freedom to interact with a project, which is EXACTLY what a CAT shouldn't do.
I have been working 14 years using CATS and rarely i didn't find myself forced to modify a big project (segmentation issues, tag manipulation, etc.) The fact now i have to use TagEditor or Notepad++ to modify a given segment (With all the risks for quality in the case of Notepad++) and then reopen it in Studio because SDL thinks that function i am already using outside it could be detrimental for productivity makes me chuckle.
SDL should simply acknowledge a fair share of users need that function and enable it quick (I am using Studio 2011 and STILL changing files in TagEditor/Notepad++, wasting hours to open, close applications, messing up with file names, folders etc. with endless troubles and confusion). Then, if those DRIVING USERS who drove SDL's choices in not implementing that function still don't want it, can well keep it deactivated. But at least leave the others the choice to use what they have paid for in the way they want. Let's not turn a CAT into an iPhone, that rather than you owning it, it's it owning you!
Let's make sense please!
[Edited at 2012-02-25 04:03 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-02-25 04:04 GMT]
| | |
| | | | HarryHedgehog
Alemania
Local time: 10:47
alemán al inglés
| | It's next year and the next release - where's the beef? | Feb 25, 2012 |
SDL Support wrote:
jimshanks wrote:
As far as I am aware SDL do not believe translators should change source text and there is no way to do it. Nor do I believe that they are planning to introduce this in any of their software. |
|
Hi Jim,
...
This will happen in a future release; and not too far into the future. So I am hopeful we will see this next year.
Regards
Paul
|
|
Dear Paul et al.,
Dear SDL Support,
It's now next year and we're on the next release of the software, plus a major bugfix (that means Studio 2011 SP1). There is still no way to edit or merge source segments to deal with customer typos and your software's own faulty segmentation logic. This was the third-most requested "new" feature at your ideas site:
So what about listening to your customers? AFAIK you haven't implemented an auto-save feature yet, either. Surely none of your corporate customers objected to that, did they?
The ideas site was a great idea - it would be even better if you actually considered them in your development roadmap.
Yours anxiously,
Harry
| | |
| | | | HarryHedgehog
Alemania
Local time: 10:47
alemán al inglés
| | A reply would be greatly appreciated | Feb 28, 2012 |
Dear Paul et al.,
Dear SDL Support,
You've posted on this thread in the past and have responded to many other posts in the forum since the last post here, so I'm fairly sure you can see it.
Is there any particular reason why the concerns expressed here not been addressed? A response - even a fuzzy yet reassuring "we're working on it" - would be greatly appreciated.
Yours,
Harry
| | | | SDL Support
Local time: 10:47
inglés
| | It's February... | Feb 28, 2012 |
... so we're only just into "next year". We are working on it and you will see it this year.
Regards
Paul
| | | | Steve Rawcliffe
Local time: 10:47
neerlandés al inglés
+ ...
| | Translator edits a problem?!? | Mar 25, 2012 |
One could ask how, if it's such a big problem for SDL's valued corporate customers to let the translator modify the source, they managed to sleep at night when Word docs were translated in Word, linking to Workbench via macros. Was there total havoc and anarchy, with translators causing humungous problems by modifying the originals left, right and centre?
Exactly.
| | | | Alexa Dubreuil
Reino Unido
Local time: 09:47
Miembro 2004
inglés al francés
+ ...
| | Any news about this feature? | May 11, 2012 |
SDL Support wrote:
It's February...
... so we're only just into "next year". We are working on it and you will see it this year.
Regards
Paul |
|
Hi Paul
I couldn't agree more with the other users who posted on this thread.
We're now in May. Do you have any news about this development?
In my opinion this should be a top priority as not being able to modify the source text (in case of typos, unnecessary line breaks due to PDF/OCR conversion, etc.) in not only inconvenient but it also corrupts the TM.
Also, this affects the concordance/lookup features. As someone said on this thread "a source segment with a typo will not come up as a 100% match when it should".
Another thing to bear in mind is that you can always go into MS Word (if the source file is a.doc file) to correct the source text manually and then replace the source file in Studio but 1) this is time consuming, 2) you have to do this each time you spot a new mistake in the source, and, 3) you lose all the comments that you might have added in your previous .sdlxliff file.
It would also be useful - for the same reasons - to be able to merge segments as this option is currently not available when the segments end with a hard line break. I assume this feature will be included with the source segment modification feature.
Any update will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Alexa
[Edited at 2012-05-11 14:38 GMT]
| | |
| | | | | Páginas sobre el tema: < [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 » | | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | |
| Studio 2009 - How to modify text in source segment | SDL MultiTerm Extract 2011 | Save time by automatically extracting terms. 15% off!
SDL MultiTerm Extract 2011 allows you to automatically create candidate term lists from your existing documentation. This removes the manual effort involved with traditional terminology creation, allowing you to rapidly add terms to SDL MultiTerm.
More info » |
| | MemSource Cloud, Translation Software That’s Powerful And Easy To Use | Includes translation memory, integrated machine translation, termbase and a free translator's workbench.
MemSource is quickly gaining popularity among LSPs, as it is both powerful and easy to use. Unlike most other cloud systems, MemSource also supports offline translation. It has never been easier for LSPs to start their own translation server in the cloud.
More info » |
|
 |
The translation workplace 
Software comparison tool
