For as long as I’ve been using translation memory tools (about 9 years), I’ve been using Wordfast and OmegaT. In general I’ve been happy with both of these tools; I love open source software in general so OmegaT has always had a special place in my heart, and I’ve always enjoyed Wordfast’s ergonomic features, excellent support and no-hassle upgrade system. For the majority of my work I do not use TM tools, both because a lot of my work is PDFs and because I feel that TM tools squeeze the flow out of my writing style, but I do have a few large recurring projects that require TM.
I’ve never been a big fan of the Trados concept: high price, lackluster support unless you buy a separate support contract, expensive upgrades, and so on. However I’ve also talked to a number of translators who I really respect, who are not in the high volume-low margin market and who are enthusiastic Trados users. So a few weeks ago, along came the perfect storm of circumstances: a client I really like approached me about a large (50-60K words) project that would require Trados Studio, I needed a new Windows computer anyway because my old XP machine was starting to die a slow death and my translation partner Eve Bodeux offered to take the Trados plunge with me. So rather than hemming and hawing about it for a year as I normally do with major decisions, in the space of a week I bought a new Windows computer, bought Office 2010, bought Trados Studio 2011 and Eve and I hired a colleague who was a Studio 2011 beta tester to give us an all-day orientation and training session before the big project started.
Now here’s where you need to sit down. Ask me what I think of Studio 2011. Go ahead, just ask. I love it. Hopefully this is proof that I’m not yet too old to change my mind, because after years of railing against the Trados business model and all things associated with it, I have to say that Studio 2011’s features are incredible, and that it was much easier to learn to use than I had anticipated. On the down side, I do still think it’s a little nutty that a piece of software that costs circa $1,000 doesn’t come with any human support unless you buy a contract, but here are some of my takeaways from about three weeks of using Studio 2011:
- If you’re going to spend the money on this thing, learn to use it correctly from the start. I dove into Wordfast in the middle of a huge project and my abilities stalled out at using a TM, using a glossary and using the concordance feature. In 9 years of using Wordfast, I never really put in the effort to learn more, so I stayed stuck with the limited features I knew how to use. Whichever TM tool you use, don’t make that mistake: either teach yourself slowly, one feature at a time, or (my recommendation) hire a very knowledgeable colleague or Trados trainer to teach you how to use it.
- Filter, filter, filter. The filters in Studio 2011 are fabulous. You can filter for all of the duplicate segments and translate them first, you can filter for all of the segments with a certain word in them, you can insert comments right in the segments and then your editor can filter for just the commented segments, and so on. Don’t underuse this feature!
- Take some time to work on your settings. Here again, Studio 2011 has some really great features (see Tools>Options) that can save you a lot of hassle. For example you can blacklist your typical typing errors; for some reason I often type “tot he” when I mean “to the,” and the spell-checker doesn’t catch it because tot and he are real words. Now I’ve blacklisted that expression so that Studio alerts me if I type it. Ditto with naughty words whose non-naughty counterparts often appear in the documents you translate (i.e. pubic/public).
- Whatever TM tool you use, or if you use no TM tool at all, just make sure that you’re making an objective decision rather than an emotional one. Definitely, when I work on something that needs to be really well written, I prefer to just open up a Word document and write. But I realized that for projects that require TM, I was resisting trying Trados for no particular reason other than that I insisted on resisting, if that makes sense.
Any other thoughts on selecting and learning to use a TM tool? Anyone tried anything new lately?
Very interesting, dear Corinne! We’ve used DVX for years and have worked with OmegaT as well. A few months ago I bought Wordfast and I truly do love it. I’ve never worked with Trados before, but I’ve heard so many horror stories throughout the years that I wouldn’t even come near that software — and yes, I have high usability (and support) standards for software that I use. Happy to hear that it’s working out great for you; making mental note of this. 🙂 Good luck on your huge project! And excellent idea about taking the time to learn all the features. I haven’t really done that with Wordfast.
“If you’re going to spend the money on this thing, learn to use it correctly from the start.” – how true, especially for a program that is more complex (but also more powerful) than most CAT tools from the previous generation.
A good way to learn is buying the useful manual that is sold through Open Exchange. Although sold through the SDL website, it was written independently (by Mats Linder, a Swedish translator, i believe).
My first impression of the manual is very positive. I’ll write a review of the manual in About Translation once I have a bit of time for that.
One raccomandation about using SDL Studio: always spend the couple of minute necessary to set up a project properly – it is true that the program permits you to just open a file and translate, but using projects is better.
Also, do explore the various programs (free and otherwise) available through Open Exchange. Some are absolutely essential, such as the the SDL program that permits to export (and re-import) a Studio translation as a bilingual Word file, or the program by Logos that permits to export a Studio file for translation by people who are stuck with “classic” Trados.
I’m glad I was sitting down. I decide to leave the Mother Ship and you go and join them! LOL!
I’ve never really understood the argument that Trados (or CATs in general) hinders the “flow”, but it seems to be one of the most often stated reasons for not using a CAT. I’m not sure if those who argue that way have set their CAT to display only one sentence at a time – then I’d agree.
But in all the CATs I’m using, you can always see the previous and the following sentences. There’s no true obstacle to someone’s translation/writing flow. In fact, when I translate in Word, my eyes are always searching the screen for the corresponding source sentence because the texts are not properly aligned on screen. This actually slows me down.
So, if I had to pick and clarify one myth about CATs – this would be it. They don’t hinder your writing flow.
And about the discount/pricing model? Well, that’s not the CAT’s fault but the agency’s – just say no if their desired discounts are ridiculous (which is often the case, unfortunately).
One thing I wholeheartedly agree with, however, is the support issue. Trados just stinks in this regard. A few years ago, I had translated an urgent document, all tags in place, no error visible, but when I wanted to create the final version, Trados just kept giving me the finger and displayed a mysterious error about some missing tags or something. I missed the deadline because the error message was totally useless and because there was no support available.
Some other time, Trados decided to crash from one minute to the next (without me doing anything) – again without any proper explanation, and I ended up reformatting my hard drive because even the re-installation of Trados failed.
Luckily, this hasn’t happened again; maybe the bugs have been fixed in recent service packs. But when you do use Trados Studio, always be prepared for the worst. :-/
Simone, I use CAT tools in general (and Studio in particular) all the time, but I do see the point of those that say it (or any other CAT tool) hinders certain types of translation.
If one is mainly involved in a more creative kind of translation, when text might need to be moved around (the beginning sentence put at the end of the paragraph for emphasis, or things of this kind), or changed, the “sentence by sentence” workflow imposed by most CAT tools could be seen as a hindrance.
+1 to Riccardo’s comment, that’s very good advice.
I also recommend Mats Linder’s manual, it can be really helpful.
ABSOLUTELY. I swear by Trados Studio. It’s funny that you should call it just “Trados”. It shows that we’re from the same generation. The Windows 95 generation. The floppy drives etc… Remember? Joking aside, is is really the best CAT software by a long way. In the 2009 version, most bugs have been ironed out, too. Expensive? Check. Complex? Check. The best TM software in town? Check. You have no other choice really. It has reduced my working hours by about 30 %.
P.S. If you want to read a bit more about translation, software, I have a blog which talk mainly about that topic:
http://english-german-translation.blogspot.com/
Would be happy if someone took a look
Good move, Corinne. While I prefer other tools for reasons of workflow and efficiency, in some respects you can’t beat certain features of Trados Studio, and I use it often for project preparation or post-processing. And you’ll probably have seen already how easy it is to import all those little TMX files from OmegaT in one batch operation! Just try that in another tool. Mostly not possible.
Your point about learning to use a tool right is dead on. Too few people do that in fact. If you have truly mastered your translation environment software – if it is any of the really good, major tools – you will be able to work seamlessly with those who use most any other tool. The frequent problems that arise in this regard are pure ignorance in 95% of cases.
Another thing that is nice about Studio 2011 is that, like memoQ, it allows keyboard shortcuts to be adapted. This helps users who move from another tool or work a lot in another tool (usually a bad idea) cope with the ergonomics better.
For support, I recommend active involvement with the yahoogroups list for Trados. There is a lot of expertise there, often more than you’ll find from SDL Support. And get to know Paul Filkin at SDL (Twitter, etc.). The guy is an amazing resource and the best face of the company as far as I am concerned. He has done more than anyone else to salvage the reputation of the company and improve its service I think.
Kevin, you are perfectly right as regards Paul. The guy has single-handedly salvaged SDL’s reputation.
I didn’t read all the comments earlier – joining the round of applause for Paul Filkin. Judith de Jong is also very helpful (on Twitter).
I can second this. Paul Filkin is amazing and very patient! After many years of using vaious versions of Trados I started to use Studio 2011 earlier this year and really like it.
I was using Trados some years ago when I was working in-house and really hated it (Trados not Studio). There was always a bug, it was so annoying! I’m glad to read your comment, it gives me a new perspective on the company so thanks for that!
I am also starting to appreciate Trados Studio 2011 a lot, but I still have a lot to learn. I am still miffed by their lack of support, unless you pay a hefty annual fee. Wordfast has this nifty chat function that has helped me in dire need. Trados also garbles up heavily formatted files sometimes (I am sure I could solve this with some setting I am unaware of) but it is easier to just open the file in Wordfast then, which handles it without problem.
I love it too Corinne. I could go on at length about the beauties of the filters… The QA checker is pretty amazing too. I also had the same experience on the value of training. Did that straight away with the latest version after waiting for ages on earlier versions.
One tip on support: if you tweet about your problem, you’ll probably get a human response pretty quickly.
Clarification: when I have had a problem a couple of times, I tweeted about it and have got the answer I needed as a result. Just using social media for my benefit.
Corinne, thanks for this.
I am in the process right now of rethinking the CAT tool we bought for our hospital (Trados 2009) because we do pay for the support and it’s very expensive. I am strongly considering memoQ. Does anyone here have any experience with both? Are there clear advantages of Trados over memoQ?
Please bear in mind, that Studio does have two sets of settings. The settings for File Types, Verification and Language Pairs are prsent both in Tools- Options and in Project – Project Settings. These settings are INDEPENDET!
So if you change settings in Tools – Options, they will not affect your already created projects. And a document opened with “Open Document” command becomes a single-file project. If you know that, the use of Studio can be even more powerful, as you can create sets of customer or task specific settings to be reused in the future. These are called Project Templates.
As for the support, wich you seem to overprice: the freelancer support is cheaper than smoking. In my case it is about 60 eurocent per day. Not that much if you ask me for a service, which can save your life just in case…
Jerzy, it depends on how many cigarettes you smoke daily. So while it’s not THAT expensive, should technical support be necessary in this day and age? Great products should need now expensive back-office framework at all. How many times do you contact support over how the iPad works?
Not really. For what reason do you need support?
If for technical problems, I agree, shouldn’t be necessary. But the support here goes beyond that – you get support also when you have a problem as the user or you need help in dealing with a certain format.
So I beg to disagree, that all support should be free or that no support should be necessary. Just look at MS or Adobe products. The same what goes there, applies here too.
And iPad is a bad example. That’s just a toy, nothing more. What do you do, when you update your iPhone and this goes wrong? Whom can you contact? Can you get any support at all?
Jerzy, I love your analogy with the smoking. Some people’s priorities are… counterproductive to put it politely. Support and development cost money, and good support is worth paying for. If you do in fact get it. Kilgray also expects support fees annually for memoQ; I think on the whole they probably do a better job of delivering value on that, though their fast pace of growth has led to some slips at times. Atril did not expect support or upgrade fees and look what happened to that company. Great product, but it stagnated for almost a decade until being bought out by a bunch of French incompetents.
Long ago I was scornful of the idea of training for CAT tools, and the offerings I saw usually confirmed my attitude. But the best of the modern CAT tools offer so many options and features that it is probably foolish for most people not to invest well in training for their tool after an initial “play phase”. Watching a few “train wrecks” with agencies who have invested heavily in TMS technology but who have not invested equally well in training has made it very clear that “saving” money this way is about as wasteful as one can get.
Greetings, my friend.
Well I like analogies in general and have some in regards to Studio. Sometimes using an analogy makes people understand many things easier.
And I really share your views on training. I have invested dozens of hours in learning the features of Studio, so in due course I also prefer this tool to all other tools. But this is mainly because I can use the potential of this tool to a much higher degree as with the other tools. Nevertheless I also must admit, that even having spent so much time in learning, evaluating, training, explaining and helping people with problems all around Studio I am still at the beginning and can use maybe 30-40% of what is there.
30 to 40% is a lot for any tool. I’ve been using Microsoft Word since 1986, and I doubt I use 10% of its features or even understand that many. As for my favored CAT tool, memoQ, I suspect I have a good grasp of 20% of that product at best. We all focus on the things that are needed for our workflows and get really good at those with a little effort. I’ve watched one very focused user, rather new to CAT tools, become a power user surpassing me with certain alignment and versioning workflows, because she needs these every week (and I don’t). If you are lucky enough to have a trainer who can look carefully at the kind of work you do or want to do and offer you a program of instruction focusing on that, your money will be very well spent, even if you spend five times what a generic course will cost you.
Hello Jerzy, what do you think is a good, fast and effective way to get training on Studio? As a beginner I have so many questions and problems that I would like to learn to solve as fast as possible.
Training in Studio: this depends on many factors. First: where do you live? Do you see any possibility to attend live training by someone, who is a trainer and and user in one person? This would be the best way. Second best way is to attend a webinar on the basics in Studio usage. Both methods must be followed by your own experience and learning by doing. With learning by doing I however do not mean chaotic acting and clicking around the place, but really a structured and goal oriented method. When you want to learn Studio efficiently (applies in fact to any other CAT tool), you must do all actions step by step and very carefully look on what happens. If what happens is clear and ok for you, go the next step. If not, repeat the step until you understand why things do happen as they do or find out what you need to change to make things happen as you will them to. Always observe action and reaction and try to remember which action causes what reaction. Do not pay too much attention to all the settings at the beginning. Start with the obvious – for the first step a simple document and one translation memory. Next time add a termbase and/or autosuggest dictionary. Continue elaborating the function “Open document” until you understand how the translation in Studio works. When you understand that, forget about “Opening documents” and start creating your own projects – remembering to create project templates from the projects, which can be reused as template for the future.
Good luck
I, too, was scared away by all the horror stories and price, (but secretly wanted the tool for years). I had the unfortunate experience of being inundated with work the minute I ever downloaded a free trial of any other CAT tool ever since about 2004.
Then the Trados Studio 2011 Starter Edition (€99 per year) came along. I bought it at the end of December 2011. I am also a techno-eejit who hates reading help files, but I gritted my teeth and ploughed through them. After about a month of wrecking my nerves, I suddenly had a few Aha! moments. Now I love, love, love working with it, and cannot wait to get the full version with all the bells and whistles, and get stuck into all the features that this budget version greys out (such as the ability to create more than one TM per language pair, and edit it)!
At first I had difficulty with the side-by-side idea (instead of above and below) for the two languages, but once I had trained my eyes out of the old habit, this layout seems to make much more sense to me.
I find that I have become much more careful about typographical errors and critical of my choices as I am translating using Trados. This has a beneficial effect in subsequent reviews and proofreading (in the Target View mode) too. Joining segments seems to be the easiest way to deal with major changes in word or sentence order for the “more creative” texts. There are a lot of online tutorials (some on Youtube, some on SDL’s own website) which tend to induce sleep, but are worth spending “free time” on. They are not helpful if you have an urgent query, but useful – even if the only thing you learn is a twenty minute session are the wonders of “F3” (Concordance search).
P.S. Corinne: you’re still young. Anyone who goes hiking the the mountains for fun has to be. 🙂
I’ll jump on the Happy-Trados-User bandwagon too. And to add two more reasons why: I just love the Word spellchecker (add words to your custom dictionary in Studio and they’ll be there in Word too), and Autosuggest is a fantastic feature too. It really saves time, even if you type very fast.
Oh yes, and please count me in on the Paul Filkin fan club too!
On a more serious note, I don’t think training is essential for people who want to make basic use of the program and have got time to investigate it at their own pace. However, I never cease to be amazed at the pleas for help you see on forums from translators who have downloaded the demo for a project with a short deadline and haven’t got a clue how to use it. That’s really asking for trouble.
….I am a ( second career)Newbee, not from the point of age but from the professional point of view. After digesting the comments on the topic ” Change of heart about Trados”…and trying various other approaches, more or less cost effective, I also came to the ultimate conclusion to pay for a well worthy one-to one consulting/training/coaching in Trados Studio 2011. … because I am still dedicated and want to go from Zero to Hero..:-) … as I’m still a great believer)….I’d like to raise the question, if anbody could recommend a “worth- the- money- Trainer” who has explanatory teaching skills as well as professional expertise…I await your suggestions in positive anticpation.
Kind regards
Monika
Hi Monika: we used Anna Kuzminsky for our Trados Studio 2011 training and she was fantastic. I’m not sure if she does online training but you could definitely ask her; you can find her contact information in the American Translators Association member directory.
Hi Corinne, Thank you very much for providing this important information and much apologies for my late response as I just returned from my trip to Germany.
Kind regards
Monika
Monika, there are quite a few good options for getting a grip in Trados on “our side” of the pond. If SDL’s Paul Filkin offers a presentation in person somewhere, I highly recommend attending – his talks are very clear, articulate and helpful. I remember one in Warsaw last September, which was good enough to make me take his product seriously.
If you fancy a trip to Bonn, have a look at http://zaac.de/workshops.php. The instructor, Angelika Zerfaß, is one of the best trainers I have ever experienced in German or English. She also presents at other locations and online and is part of the Loctimize team, which is a great bunch of trainers and consultants. I think anything they offer for Trados will be worthwhile. (They also do excellent memoQ training and teach how to collaborate with various systems.)
Hi Kevin……Thank you very much for your satisfactory and prolific comment on my posts. To follow up your information in scrutiny will be the prevalent task on my agenda.Just to mention by chance, a couple of other questions in extand related to this topic are burning on my toungue. May I send you an private email to the address provided in your comment?
Kind regards
Monika Gregan
Translating since 1984. Used Trados 15 years ago, scrapped it for Atril’s Deja Vu 2.0 because Deja Vu didn’t crash and corrupt our files, and could even then process more than 1 file at once. Using Deja Vu X2, which has many more features than mentioned above, runs quickly, doesn’t corrupt files, and doesn’t crash. Free updates every 6 weeks! Using Trados Studio 2011 since May for 1 client, and feel suicidal every time I press Enter and wait for something to happen! Not impressed! I really think Studio is a tool for project managers, not for translators. Duncan R. Bell
I agree with this wholeheartedly. The whole success of SDL products is that they have set up an industry standard for agencies and project managers. If you type fast, the segmentation slows you down, and this approach just isn’t ever going to work properly for ordinary text. The technology was developed to localise software, and of course it works well for that and for things like computer specifications and other repetitive and technical applications. But for anything approaching ordinary language, the help you get from the system doesn’t come close to cancelling out the aggravation of using the damned thing in the first place.
It seems you are talking about Trados 2007 – the situation did change with Studio dramatically. Nevertheless, I admit it is much more suitable for formal language than for books.
Sorry, but I have been using Trados since its inception in 2006, now six years later and over 500 in updates, I was FORCED to update to Studio 2011, as my previous version for over $1400 in 2006 is going to be INVALID. That is simple blackmail. I am very happy that there are new programs out there, lime MEmoQ that is super easy to use, you do not run into problems often associated with tags, and so on. I just downloaded the trial version, ad voila I was able to complete a 15000 translation and before my trial expired, I actually created another project and completed in for over 14500 words again. I have only praise for MemoQ, however, I wish Trado was out out of business, as they only pray on translators to get more business, but once you purchase the program and numerous upgrades, there is no support whatsoever. Once I upgraded, the whole experience messed up my Word program and not only that now i am not able to use Trados, now my Word templates are all messed up. Oh and Trados just told me that I can contact their support for help, and that I can not return the update anymore. This is just ridiculous. 2000 dollars later and not only did it help – IT MESSED UP MY SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Beware of the SDL monopoly. Once we all stop using it – more translators and companies will follow.
Well, don’t try Transit NXT, cause you’ll instantly fall in love with it, and after that you’ll never want to see Trados again…
Seconded to Duncan. Great filters and Autocorrect new to Studio? Wow, what a breakthrough! Deja Vu has been featuring these things for over 10 years… plus a free human support. Upgrade payments once upon a time, not twice a year for each and every update. And – but this is an industry standard nowadays – full SDLXLIFF support, so I fortunately don’t need Studio any more – waiting five minutes for Studio to launch was driving me mad.
I have been a heavy Trados user since the 1990, and I was crazy about Trados 2007 (yes, I admit it, I am a TagEditor lover). I switched to Studio at about the same time as Corinne last year and despite myself, I am starting to like it, although I still find the lack of transparency (if you get an error message, good luck figuring out what is wrong and how you can fix it!) profoundly irritating. Plus, it acts as though my PC exists only to serve it, and I don’t feel like buying a new computer just yet.
Without even mentioning their lousy business tactics and misleading advertising, I am also so put off by the whimsical fuzzy match algorithms (how can “From Soup to Nuts” be a 60% match for “From Strategy to Action”?!) and especially the lack of compatibility with other tools (I often partner up with colleagues using either Trados 2007 or Wordfast and the file conversion and exchange is a huge pain), and I have been shopping for something equivalent or better (Wordfast? MemoQ? DejaVu?).
Does anyone have any advice to offer on the comparative advantages of those? Or on the options for working on sdlxliff files with other CAT tool users without fear in your heart every time the file comes back?
Hello Evelyna!
I only use Studio 2011 for QA (Verify), and that’s because 1 major customer requires it. I use Atril’s Deja Vu X2 (aka “DVX2”) for translating SDLXLIFF files all the time. I can translate SDLXLIFF files at least twice as quickly in DVX2 as in Studio, and I’ve tried both at length. Files that open, run and save quickly in DVX2 make Studio crash frequently. In DVX2 you don’t have to wait after pressing Enter! In it I can use any TM that’s sent to me with the SDLXLIFFs, in the Studio package, saving it to TMX in Studio and importing it into a DVX2 TM. You can use the MultiTerm file too, if provided, but the procedure is too complicated to explain in a short message. (Not worth it unless there are many relevant entries). Easiest to look up in Multiterm, add the terms you need to your project-specific Lexicon (separate from a general termbase) in DVX2. You can of course use multiple TMs and termbases. 2 killer bonuses in DVX2: * no “glue” needed to translate, and propagate across, many files at once (I’ve handled over 200 short XML files in 1 project, no problem). You can handle each file alone, or with its mates, as you wish. ** Assembly: DVX2 takes all the terms in your active termbase, and any you have added to the project-specfic Lexicon, and pastes them all into the target segment, in the source lang. word order, on command. You fill in the gaps, and fix the word order and grammar (adding missing terms to your Lexicon, for updating your termbase later, as you go). Maybe Studio does this, but I haven’t found out how!
I don’t work for Atril, who own DVX2, but I can’t recommend it enough! See http://www.atril.com for details. See dejavu-l in Yahoo groups for an excellent, friendly and supportive collection of fellow-users.
Best wishes
Duncan R. Bell
Professional translator since 1986
Trados is notoriously strictly for geeks – I don’t even understand the problems let alone the solutions on the Trados user boards on the Internet. Unless you are a computer engineer – don’t touch it! I used SDLX 2007 and have now switched to MemoQ. Even I, the world’s worst non-geek, can handle both. This doesn’t apply to later SDLX versions, by the way.
Does this means that the Trados products are simply not designed for use by their target users? Hard to believe, if true, but I stand by my criticisms of it above. No matter what tool I use, I simply expect it to run quickly and efficiently on a modern machine, and to handle and store my data without corrupting it. Ultimately, it must perform the functions it claims to provide without difficulty or delay. That last, general point is a basic prerequisite for anything that people use, be it a toaster, a beer mat or a piece of software! (Although I’ve had no success storing data in my toaster 🙂
“Does this means that the Trados products are simply not designed for use by their target users?” – there is a simple answer to this statement. No, it is not true. Studio can be very well used by anyone. And someone using MemoQ will be able to use Studio (and the other way round to).
So why does it run so slowly, etc., compare to other tools? It could so easily offer the same functions as those tools, to make the translator’s life easier and speed up translation (which is after all what all these tools are about). I’d be delighted if I could just use 1 tool for translating bilingual files (xliff), and QA-ing afterwards. and I don;t much care which one it is, if it works!
Which functions do you miss so hard? What does run that slowly? Compared to Across it is lightning fast, compared with MemoQ very similar. I cannot compare with DVX, because I do not use it, and I do not use Transit to prepare projects, so no comparison here too. But in terms of translation speed, I am faster in Studio than in MemoQ and MemoQ beats Transit. Why? Simply because I understood the logic behind and optimized my working way to what the tool can offer. So it is in the end useless to discuss which one is better – the one you know best is the best tool for you. All the statements from disappointed people here are more or less the result of not understanding the tool. If I would start to moan about Transit my statements are worth nothing, as I do not know the tool and canźt use its full potential. The same applies to my statements (if I would state so), that Studio is the best tool of the world. This is only true and applies only to me, because I can use the potential there. If you utilize the potential of DVX in full or at least to a high extent, there will be no other tool to satisfy you. We all are only humans and thus subjective. There is no and will be no objective opinion on CAT tools.
Jerzy, I agree with you up to a point, but there are some objective problems with Studio (which I know very well and can use to its full potential).
1. SDL has gone to great lengths to ensure that Studio is not easily compatible with other tools, in order presumably to force translators into buying it, so I have to use external applications to exchange the files with my team. In my humble opinion, this will bite SDL in the *** (it already is as people find workarounds and other CAT tool manufacturers are catching up).
2. Files processed with Studio cannot be easily manipulated outside (or inside) Studio. If you hit an obstacle, you cannot jump over it, you have to restart from scratch.
3. Studio’s fuzzy matching algorithm sucks big time, and I can give you endless examples why. However, I hear MemoQ’s is not different… I hope that’s not true.
3. I profoundly disagree with the company’s philosophy and marketing approach. I dislike it telling clients that CAT tools save me time, because more often than not it is not true. I dislike SDL taking a great company with lightning-fast support and great customer relations team (Trados) and turning it into the Microsoft of the translation world. And I dislike it disengaging itself from support, not that their support is worth anything – I still remember when I was paying for support years ago, one of their techs taking six weeks of back and forth to resolve a minor but obstinate issue (duplicate translations were being saved in a TM not set up to save duplicates) and then informing me that they couldn’t keep working on it unless I renewed my support contract.
So that means that I cannot in all fairness recommend Studio to my editors. And that means that I need to try something else, and that Studio has lost a long-tome champion.
1. Same applies to MemoQ and Transit. I do not see this as a failure. If you consider also Across, than the picture will be even better – so why do you blame Studio for this?
2. Not really true. You can open and thus manipulate the SDLXLIFF file in Notepad++ or similar. But OTOH the same argument applies to any other CAT.
3. It is not that bad as you seems to be. T2007 algorithm was better to some extent, but after 4 years of using Studio I can only say, that I needed to change my habits and not use matches under 50% anymore.
3a) Mainly very personal reasons, which I will not comment. But as for the duplicates: all SDLTMs are now allowing duplicates and there is no setting to change this. Saving duplicates sometimes is indeed a problem, but this happens randomly and not always.
Your last sentence is again a personal opinion. But this is fully ok – I would not recommend some other tools for similar reasons. The most important part here would be to be honest enough and tell people, that what I do recommend or not recommend is based solely on my own opinion and they should make their own experiences. Not making own experiences is the worst case here.
Agreed then – my comments are entirely based on my own opinions, based on my own experiences in using various CAT and similar tools since 1987, and my strong dislike of Studio 2011 for the reasons outlined in earlier postings should be understood on those terms.
Dear Duncan
I agree with you in full – the best tool is always the one which serves YOU best. Name it whatever – and it is you (me) who decide for himself (myself). When all users will understand that, the endless CAT-fight discussions will be over an we start to talk about interoperability and how we could help each other fulfilling the wishes and needs of our customers. When we go together we are strong, forcing our own point of view makes us weak.
Dear Jerry, I agree! I only know Deja Vu (X2 is the current version) and Trados Studio 2011, so my comments are based on that. If Studio was reliable (I mean quick, didn’t unaccountably fail to work for various reasons), I’d use it more, and I value its QA functions, some of which are not available in Deja Vu. Sdlxliff files are no problem in Deja Vu X2, so interoperability is possible. Sharing TMs is possible, through TMX exchange. Sharing termbases is more difficult, but possible in DVX2 by importing Mutliterm 5.5-format text files. But regardless of what tool any translator is using, cynical attempts by tool vendors to corner markets or exclude users of other tools, by programming restrictive functions and ensuring poor interoperability, is the problem. Ultimately, translators should be able to decide what tool they want to use, and supply clients with what they want (be it finished translations, bilingual files, or other data), and tool verndors have no right to try and influence that, for their own commercial gain. I started commenting here because I was surprised at the strong praise for Studio, which in my honest opinion really isn’t the best tool available for our purpose, no matter how it compares with others. Pozdrawiam!
Duncan, my feelings exactly. Jerzy, there is one more thing that I profoundly dislike about Studio (or SDL if you like): I consider that for that kind of money, tools should serve us and adapt to our methods of working, not the other way around. Unfortunately, all the progress Studio has made in that direction since 2007 or 2008 serves agencies and project managers, not translators. So I finally voted with my feet – I bought DejaVu. I will let you know what I think of it in a few weeks 😉
Glad you agree so much.
But returning to your arguments – please show me a single tool, which adapts to your methods of work? I am afraid even DVX will not do. MemoQ certainly doesn’t, exactly as the others don’t.
The argument about project managers is not valid for me, than finally every single freelance translator is his or her own project manager. And used that way – as a tool for projects, even single file projects, it works really very well. In my opinion working with projects is the only valid and sound way to use Studio. If you look at the competitors tools like MemoQ, Transit or Across, there is no other way than to setup a project. Only Studio allows you to “Open document” – which might seem to be useful at the first glance, but in the end it leads only to misunderstandings. When you use the project wizard, you are done faster than with “Open document” and the results are perfect – you get a project with very detailed settings, which may differ for each single customer/purpose. This is very intuitive, if you give it a chance.
I cannot talk about DVX, as I do not use it, but compared with the other tools* even the pricing does not differ that much. You can often get offers to buy Studio for a decent price. If you buy MQ, you also have to pay each year to maintain your upgrade right and get a support. The same applies to Studio. Transit can only be paid on yearly basis and is ridiculously expensive. There is only one tool – DVX – which might beat both here, as you pay just once AFAIK.
* I left Across unmentioned, because I do not consider it to be a tool for translators, even if it comes free for freelancers. It is free to bind them on vendors using Across and to make them slaves – there have been quite a longish discussion on that last year on Facebook and XING (a German platform).
Jerzy, what is it that memoQ “doesn’t” do? I have noticed lately that you have made quite a few public comments about the tool that are simply not correct and have been fairly impervious to attempts to set the record straight. So write up your list, send it to me, and once again publicly, I will address it point by point so that any engineer or kindergarten teacher can follow.
I don’t really *mind* that your perceptions of memoQ are wrong. I hope they convince a lot of people, especially those who work in my specialties. Every one of them should use the tools of your choice. Life’s too short to work hard.
BTW, I think even sober we would both agree that the Atril support model is crap; in fact, it’s the major reason the company is failing in my opinion. Good support requires expensive resources. Period. So does development. I don’t think I need to remind you of the stasis DVX has been in for about a decade now. Very little improvement compared to… almost every other tool. For God’s sake, people, give SDL your money before you give it to the dumb Parisians running Atril into the ground now. Daniel Benito is one of the great genius developers of the industry, but what his former company has become is worthy of neither him nor of his father Emilio.
And Across? Ack. Not even across my knee. Not even with thick rubber gloves.
Dear Kevin
My perception of MemoQ is of course biased. Exactly the same way the perception of Studio by many other users is biased. We are all somehow biased.
What does MQ not do: no track changes there. AutoPropagation has just the option to switch on or off, no individual settings. At least up to version 5 no possibility to remove unnecessary tags in Word doc files. No chance to enter a comment in a server project to a locked segment. Very complicated advanced options, compared to Studio. Only limited possibility to configure the software to your needs and no possibility to place MQ windows on a second screen. For this reason the GUI is very cluttered. Tag handling is not that convenient like in Studio. Stability is comparable with Studio.
These are just my basics notes, as I do not work enough with MQ.
TBH I would indeed be grateful, if you would take the time to set the records straight – I do that in case of Studio, as soon I can.
Jerzy:
1. Dead wrong about tracked changes. See my blog & book for a start, more added in v6.2
2. What settings do you want with autopropagate. I suspect this may not be correct but cannot say without more data.
3. I have my doubts about the comments; but then I work with the latest versions and only a fraction of my projects are server-based. Since you seem to be talking about versions at least 2 or 3 major revisions past it’s hard to figure out what to do with your comments. Shall we just stick to discussing Studio 2009 or 2007? That would be comparable,.
4. Which options? I disagree probbaly, but it might depend on the option. Which ones do you feel a need for?
5. I agree. The GUI is cluttered and sucky. Every time I try to use it on my netbook and I fish my second glass of wine I start fantasizing what fiendish tortures I will devise for Gábor if he doesn’t give me dockable elements soon. Or something where I can at least see entire dialogs all the time.
6. How do you mean “tag handling is not as convenient”? I love the convenience of including tags in my word counts and making more money. What convenience do you prefer? I’m sure something can be worked out.
I think Studio is a fantastic tool. That’s why I want all my competitors to use it! And I am working on a book to encourage that. Honest Injun!
KSL
1. Does MQ 6.2 support track changes and review/sign-off processes? May I start them as the project owner? Can that be done so, that I create a project, put it on a NAS, than translate and my wife accesses very the same project with no additional settings just by double-click on a corresponding project file, opens it for review and implements changes, which are tracked? This is what works in Studio and – left aside the dumb name “review” – is fully compliant to what EN 15038 requires.
2. AutoPropagate should ask me for confirmation and allow me to say yes or no depending on the circumstances. I cannot propagate sentences like “fixed with 2 screws”, as in Polish the ending of “screws” will depend on number (i.e. be different for 2 screws and 5 screws).
3. I am afraid the problem was connected to the server project and the settings of it. It is very well possible, that even the same would apply to any other server-based projects in other tools. Nevertheless – it is criminal not to allow to comment on locked segments. They may very well contain errors and the effort of describing the whole in an extra file is far too big. The tool MUST allow me to do that. There should simply be no possibility for PM to block certain functions. Generally speaking, tool vendors do give to much freedom to PMs – but that has nothing to do with MQ individually. This is really a very general remark.
4. Advanced options like QA checking, TM settings like abbreviations and variables – I am afraid this is my inability to find the proper settings in the jungle of names, which are not intuitive. Most probably the same options in Studio are not intuitive either, but I know them already.
5. Studio can be very well sorted – I use two screens and now feel I could utilize one more…
6. OK, I can’t include tags in wordcount, a pity. But inserting tags in Studio does fit me better.
Oh please, Jerzy! Tag manipulation in Studio is ridiculously inflexible compared to TagEditor, and advanced options are anything but user-friendly. And it behaves like I don’t need to use anything else on my computer while it’s running. It’s like driving a gaz-guzzling four-wheel drive minibus with a trailer and a minibar on autopilot – it pretends to be and do everything for everyone but it won’t let you drive it yourself and is a total overkill for someone who just needs it to commute to work.
Oh, you did not notice, that you can handle tags the same way as in TagEditor? A pity…
Well, the advanced options are pretty straightforward, if you keep my “tea making” analogy in mind.
The software has been that heavy, is not that bad anymore. Of course it takes some power from the PC, but with my new one you do not notice any full trunk respective trailers there. My new PC drives like a nice car with powerful engine and good steering. When you start Studio, this is like would you take 2 or 3 passengers with you – a decent car will not even behave differently. The same about the PC I own now.
But I think all this discussion is useless – I have already wrote this before: the best tool is the one which suits you best. There was no, is no and will be no best tool.
As I mentioned I have been an intensive Trados user for a long time and I have been using Studio for a year. For the past several weeks I have used it exclusively to translate Powerpoints. I wish I had the time and the inclination to list all the bugs and minor annoyances that I have to wade through every single hour of every day, such as the unexplicable habit Studio as of adding a six-digit extension at the end of the target sdlxliff file, then giving me an error message and refusing to save the sdlxliff unless I remove the extra digits (manually). Or giving me an error message at every change of slide if I try use the target preview function of the PPTX. Or insisting on saving the file that I export for review in a fr-CA folder despite my clearly-indicated desire to save it into an FR-ER folder. Or the occasional whimsical refusal to validate the second element of a tag pair if I dare insert the tag pair before I type the text. Or the inexplicable refusal to display a customised QuickInsert button even though I have entered it, twice (or was it three times) in every possible set of functions. Maybe all of these would get solved if I buy a new computer instead of going on vacation? Possibly, but I am PO’d enough not to care.
And now, this is enough time wasted on a fruitless discussion. I agree with you on the major point: everyone should use the tool that best suits their needs and their work process.
A very strange behavior really – none of those problems appear to me and I use Studio to translate at least 100,000 words total per month…
Indeed I think this will not have an end unless we stop 🙂
I’m afraid I think the whole concept of Trados Studio is outdated and obsolete. Machine translation is zooming ahead but the dominance of SDL in the industry forces working translators to use the tool that produces the best experience for translation agencies in making money out of our work. I can do 10,000 words a day of straight text without using these stupid segmented-text systems, and it goes down to 4,000 if I have to use Wordslow or Studio or whatever it is. Obviously there are many situations (long and repetitive technical texts, for instance) where this is the best solution, but for instance right now I am doing a series of books about tourist attractions, and the agency forces me to use Studio because they are convinced they ‘need’ huge and pointless TM files full of mistakes and random stylistic changes, which get passed around the ‘team’ of translators who never communicate with each other or talk about issues like terminology, instead being forced to rely on this incredibly complicated technological solution that as we all know doesn’t actually deliver. It may well be that this extremely expensive and large programme, stuffed as it is with technical features, is the best of the bunch, but CAT tools in general are a bad idea. Fast typing and experience are a much better bet.
Once again: a toll cannot serve everyone in the same manner. Depending of what you do and HOW do you do this, a certain tool can be helpful. This of course requires you to know how to use it. If you take me for example, tools like MemoQ or Transit are more a hindrance for me (despite many good functions there); as I am used to work with Studio and indeed expect the other tools to behave at least similarly. So my efficiency is best with Studio, but I also know this tool best. If you efficiency would increase with another tool, than this would be the tool you should use. A black-white opinion on any CAT tool is unfair and brings new user nothing. An honest description of what you do and how the tool is helping or not are much better,
“It may well be that this extremely expensive and large programme, stuffed as it is with technical features, is the best of the bunch, but CAT tools in general are a bad idea.”
Let us talk about this in few years. The industry now is changing at a speed you might not notice…
Well of course the industry is changing, but a lot of the research is going into speech-based systems, so we don’t directly see the effects of it. I don’t know if you saw the demonstration last year of Microsoft’s new system that allowed an American to make a speech in Chinese in real time, for instance. I’m sorry if I wasn’t sufficiently clear: in what I think of as ordinary text, of which the books about tourist attractions I am currently working on form a good example, the ‘assistance’ I get from the CAT tool is just not worth it in terms of speed or quality of work. As someone else in this thread said very well, Studio is a tool for project managers and not for translators – though of course it does depend on what kind of material you are working with.
Well, maybe I should also be precise: I do not believe in experience and fast typing as being the best tool ever.
Speech recognition will of course come, like machine translation, so my task will be to adapt to it. But still even with speech recognition I would try to utilize a CAT for the sake of consistency and less effort.
Speech recognition is already here and has been for some years but is not of much use because it’s not a very efficient way of inputting text as you have to format and edit and so on. But the point is not that speech is going to replace typing (though I suppose it may happen): it is that the speech-based systems include research into automated translation which is well-funded and attracting smart people. But corpus systems are also doing well. I don’t see anything like the same rate of advance in commercial CAT tools. Does Trados Studio really produce radically better results or performance than the early versions from years ago? Can anyone seriously suggest that the progress can compare with the huge improvements in machine translation over the same period?
You are mixing up points here. Studio is not a tool for machine translation. It is still a tool for human translation, The human being may decide to use several translłation sources, but even if MT is used, it is the human who confirms or neglects it.
And indeed, Studio is a huge improvement, not only in term of consistence. Also the whole way it can be used has changed – the tool is now an efficient process companion for you needs. This means of course, that your processes need to be optimized to use Studio, as otherwise you will not achieve any plus from it. But once again, you do not buy a Ferrari just to put the reverse and drive in that direction, because for the automatic transmission used in this car this is the first position of the switch lever… You will certainly put the drive to D and try the power of your new car. But before you come to Germany and try the unlimited motorway, a good advice would be to learn how the car behaves on some closed runs. Simply meaning, you have to learn this car – nothing different to ANY tool we use. You need to learn Windows (or OS X or whatever you use), you need to learn Word or whatever you use. Not having learned that tools simply means you are using the potential which is doubtlessly there.
Jerzy,
please reassure me that, in using your metaphor of a Ferrari, you in no way meant to imply that you consider Studio to be the Ferrari of CAT tools! A simple series of bench tests (1. how fast can “insert name of CAT” open this sample file? 2. how many files can “insert name of CAT” process at once, etc.) would provide a clear basis for choosing the right CAT, on purely ergonomic grounds, and not emotional attachment to a particular tool (or its vendor).
SAP AG (a German company you may have heard of) was also of the opinion that a client company had to reorganise its internal structure, to gain maximum benefit from SAP’s software (as I was told by its consultants when I was an in-house translator in prehistoric times, before it had 5000 employees). Of course, this was often very expensive, but perhaps SAP’s consultancy fees were standard for the industry. Nevertheless, this made SAP very rich! While willing to change my work habits to increase my efficiency, it disturbs me that a CAT vendor whose product is definitely not primarily intended to increase my efficiency should hope to have any influence on how I work. For example, why can’t I export external bilingual views (to Word) with comments, or a report containing both QA messages and the affected segment(s) in Studio? Because the vendor could, but will not, enable those functions! So they’re telling me how to work! Tut tut!
I meant “tool” of course, sorry for the typo.
Good advice on using translation environment tools, Corinne! I belong to those who don’t dive into manuals but solve issues when they come my way. This also applies to SDL Studio (which should not be named Trados anymore, RIP). I have no support contract, but the peers at proz.com always come to assist, and the support forum at proz is a good source of information.
In fact Studio is easy to use from the start once you have realised, that you need to change the view according to Project, Files, Editor and Report.
Keep in mind that you can set the colors of the editor freely. If the background color is not helpful, just choose a better color, etc.
On Heinrich’s comment “In fact Studio is easy to use from the start once you have realised, that you need to change the view according to Project, Files, Editor and Report.”
Lots of things are easy to use, but that doesn’t automatically make them the best solution to a specific problem. Manually pressing wedge-shaped indentations into clay to record information is easy, and the clay can be baked to create data backups that have a shelf life of over 5 millennia, but that doesn’t mean we want to go back to using cuneiform on clay tablets!
Back then to the usual comment at this point: Studio is far from the best tool for translators who are actually translating texts, as opposed to project management etc., in many ways, detailed by me and other contributors to this blog. The ability to change the user interface colours is not a feature unique to Studio, and its importance pales into insignificance when you consider the features Studio does not have, that would make it a better tool. It’s a shame: I like its QA features (but wish there were more options for configuring them to prevent false error reporting), but that’s not enough to make me think it’s a fit tool for daily use.
Hi Duncan
I have already understood, that Studio is a pain somewhere in your eyes.
But I am lucky to tell you, that this is just an opinion like many others – a very subjective one. I for one do not really miss many functions in Studio being a freelance translator and on the other hand, even being “just a freelance” have learned to appreciate (even very much appreciate) all the project management options offered here. In terms of my business Studio is the only software which comes closest the needs I have. Other tools have more shortcomings. So I just hope Studio will be made better to fulfill my needs with the next service pack or release.
But OTOh having these great competitor in the market has brought quite a big movement here, making both Studio and its main competitor really MUCH better then they were some three years ago. Now you really have the opportunity to chose the tool which fits you best. However trying to tell others this would be also their favorite tool is I think useless. Most probably you will never switch to Studio, as it does not comply with the way you work, but also I will most probably not switch completely to its main competitor, just because it also does not fit with the way I work.
So it might be a good point now to acknowledge, that both Studio and the main competitor have made a huge development in the past and both are incredibly productive if used properly, so the user can choose either one accordingly to her/his needs.
I quote your comment “Studio is far from the best tool for translators who are actually translating texts, as opposed to project management” – I agree with this comment in full, if you change the “for translators” into “for me”. In that context this comment is very valid, in a general context it cannot be right, as you simply cannot know the general context in full. A part of it yes, but neither you nor me know “all translators” to be able to post such comments.
Hello Jerzy!
I still don’t know whether or not you consider Studio to be “the Ferrari of Cat tools”, which would of course make your views “very subjective” too, as you did not respond to my posting about that. We had already established that different tools suit different translators. I don’t know which tool you mean when you say “the main competitor. However, I did write “A simple series of bench tests (1. how fast can “insert name of CAT” open this sample file? 2. how many files can “insert name of CAT” process at once, etc.) would provide a clear basis for choosing the right CAT, on purely ergonomic grounds, and not emotional attachment to a particular tool (or its vendor).” – which you did not respond to either. I was talking about an independent study that focusses on how quickly, efficiently, and correctly, a translator can translate a given number of words in multiple files. That would be useful!
Personally, I don’t push Deja Vu X2, even if I do prefer it: I criticise the functionality in Studio that is ineffecient or absent, since that ties in with the original subject of this blog. I am not an apologist for my preferred tool, not do I immediately jump to its defence if it is ever criticised – because I am prepared to accept that even my preferred tool is not perfect, and some of the criticisms are justified.
The main competitor is MemoQ.
Your proposed test does not allow me to find any suitable tool for me, as just opening a file or testing how many files can be processed at once does not cover my needs.
Unfortunately having an objective test on tools is exactly as possible as the comparison between Apple and PC or better iPhone and Android phones. I do not think I need to add more here.
As for CAT tools, you will find numerous opinions. My including. So to answer your questions directly: I do consider Studio to be my Ferrari, even though MemoQ would open most files faster. Most probably DVX would do too. But this is not what makes a difference. The difference is the overall performance. Performance in MY hands. And in such case Studio fits in my way of thinking. I am not a linguist and having partial segment matching and terms injected in my text even before I start to work on it is a hindrance, as instead of start formulating what I want I need first to analyse what the program wants. I am a bad typist, so AutoSuggest, powered with my heavily loaded termbases, is the help function I need most.
Then the ability to use regex widely in this tool (Studio) makes it more powerful than MemoQ. The ability to export a file for revision for someone who never ever seen a CAT is also a nice feature, making my life easier.
This is a very subjective opinion, based on a comparison of 4 tools: Studio, MemoQ, Transit an Across. I have also seen strong demos of DVX by its users, who are very perfomant with this tool and I also believer, that DVX is much better for them as Studio could ever be. From what I have seen in DVX there would have been just few nice things (also available in MQ), making this tool interesting. I have a colleague, using not just one but a number of tools for one job – because he exactly knows what can he achieve best in which tool. I am not that advanced, so for the time being I use two. And here my opinion is less subjective: if you put MemoQ and Studio together, being able to take the best of each one into your process, you most probably are very near to have the best tool in the world.
The study you would like to have should be carried out by a translator extremely experienced with any of the compared tools. So this limits the processing of such test to a very small number of people in the whole world. TBH I think no one of such users would ever bother to compare any tools, as they will be booked out with real jobs for years.
All other comparisons done by “independent” user or organizations make no sense, because only if you really know how the tool works, you can use its power. Otherwise it would be like performing a Formula 1 race in the Formula 1 cars with taxi drivers…
No more comments from me: as I said before, I started commenting here because I was surprised at the strong praise for Studio, which in my honest opinion really isn’t the best tool available for our purpose, no matter how it compares with others. Since everyone is free to differ, let’s all go on our merry ways and rejoice!
I agree with almost everything from Kevin Lossner, congratulations on the book BTW, very informative! My company started using Trados in the 3.2 version. Subsequently we have always upgraded to every new version until Studio 2009. Disaster, as witnessed by the fact that they started to give away a copy of 2007 with every purchase of 2009! Luckily we had also acquired memoQ Server in an early version, which we also upgrade to every new version.
We like the corporate policy of Kilgray (memoQ) that underlines “interoperability”. The corporate policy of SDL appears to be the opposite, every succesive development is not 100% compatible with previous versions or other CAT tools. Note that when xliff came out they rewrote it as sdlxliff!
With memoQ Server we manage technical projects in the energy, oil & gas and defence sectors that can be huge; e.g. all technical manuals for aircraft, ships, submarines, power stations, wind farms, etc. Some of these projects can be over 35,000 pages including technical drawings.
We can work with teams of translators all connected with our server. We can simultaneously check/unify terminology with our in-house engineers. We can discuss specific points in the memoQ project-based forum on our server. We can also work with many different file formats at the same time.
Over a 3-month trial period I measured that our productivity increased 40%. There has also been a very noticeable increase in quality measured by customer satisfaction.
Customer service from Kilgray is excellent. Response times are usually measured in hours and not days or even weeks as with SDL.
Professional training in the use of any CAT tool is essential in my opinion.
I can also highly recommend Angelika Zerfass (in German and English) from Bonn, Germany, for both Trados and memoQ. We note that several of our suggestions to her during her last training session with us (our wish list) were in fact incorporated in the next version of memoQ. That’s what I want from a CAT tool!
We continue to work with Trados as it is required by a major customer. However we need to do a lot of file preparation before opening a project in Trados, and even then often encounter problems with file stability.
Hi Corinne,
this is a no-conflict “peace on earth” note… as I design CAT tools for the love of it. Just curious about the “great features” you discovered in Studio 2011, you quote the Blacklist. Wordfast actually pioneered that one (blacklist) way back when, it’s been there right from the start, 2002 😉
Still a faithful reader of yours – please keep up the good work!
yves
Thanks Yves! And there will always be a special place in my heart for Wordfast (really!) and all your support when I was running it on Linux. In terms of great features, I was actually talking about Trados’ filtering capabilities; now even supporting regular expressions (so you can search for “tea cup” “teacup” and “tea-cup” in one search!). Also I haven’t used Wordfast in a while, so I’m sure there’s lots of stuff that I’m not current on. Thanks so much for checking in!
Protein also helps make meals more satiating so you eat less and won.
However, the human body was specifically designed to move, not to
sit, like so many people do today. Luckily, we live
in an era of many technological advances such as smartphones, and tablets that have a myriad of useful
apps; so why not use this technology to help you lose weight.
I suggest you try another translation tool for a change, see how things have evlolved: https://poeditor.com. It’s ideal for software, web and mobile app translators and it has many very useful functions.
Howdy! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after browsing through
some of the post I realized it’s nnew to me. Anyhow, I’m definitely glad I found it and I’ll be bookmarking and
checking back frequently!
This combination delivers higher performance, both in terms of prescribing.
Other research has found ppi that PPIs are being overprescribed for
heartburn. Pneumonia, asthma and tuberculosis are the most accepted
domains and demonstrate worldwide activities in ppi this field.
These points must be remembered before going for the PPI.
Connectivity in free BlackBerry Torch 9860 is 4 GB storage with
768 MB RAM of internal memory. Check the costs which PPI reclaim companies charge should you win.
Great website. Plenty of helpful info here. I am sending
it to some budies ans also shharing in delicious.
Andd certainly, thanks to your sweat!
It’s funny how different we are : ) You feel it interrupts your flow – and I love it that it breaks every sentence out into individual boxes! Gives me a much better overview and I can focus on one sentence at a time, which I find soothing. After translating for many years, I finally decided to buy a CAT tool this summer and I just love it! I use memoQ and I use it for every document I possibly can.
I did take the memoQ certification level 1 class right away – like you say, you might as well learn to use it properly from day one.
Great post!
Helle
Hey I knopw this is off topic but I was wonderiing if
you knew of any widgets I could aadd to myy blog that automatically tweet mmy newwest twitter updates.
I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite
some time and was hoping maybe you would have some
experience with something like this. Please let me know if you run into
anything. I truly enjoy reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.
Anyone saw this new thing coming around slowly; tradoms.com ?
LOL, most probably a hoax (“you’ll get our product in 2014 … in 1 year 124 days…”. They made my day!
Ӎagnificeոt goodѕ frߋm you, man. I’ѵe Ьe aware
your stuff previous to and you are just too great. I realply like what you’ve bought right herе, really lkke
what you are stating and tthe way whrein you assert it.
You’re making it enjoyable aոd you still take
care οf to keep it sensible. I can’t wait tо learn much more from
you. This is actually а wonderful site.
I’m in love with this blog. I have visited this blog so many times.
I discovered this website on google. I have acquired
an excellent stuff of knowledge. Cheers.
Fascinating! Do you translate while you drive?
I can see 1000 reasons why you were resisting… and I have $1000 reasons more.