| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | MemoQ novice with problems Thread poster: GeorginaW (X)
|
|---|
Jamie Lucero 
United States
Local time: 07:34
French to English
| Additional information to consider | Nov 11, 2009 |
Hello All,
I think some very valuable advice has been given for beginning tool users here. However, I think it is important to avoid blanket statements that mislead these users.
Gergely Vandor wrote:
There is a reason that all transaltion tool vendors have abandoned the Word interface.
Tomás Cano Binder wrote:
As seen with the evolution of Trados and Wordfast itself, macro-based translation memory tools are bound to give way to side-by-side tools with an own environment, like MemoQ.
There are a number of companies—including Wordfast—that are still actively developing tools with Microsoft Word integration, and some are even new players. Please see the following:
http://www.anymem.com/
http://felix-cat.com/
http://www.jivefusiontech.com/
http://www.metatexis.net/
http://www.multicorpora.com/
http://similis.org/
http://www.trmem.com/
http://www.wordfast.com/
David Turner wrote:
WF's minimalist approach calls for careful reading of the 100-page manual before you start...
It seems there are conflicting ideas of Wordfast Classic here. On the one hand, it is made to sound like a simple, novice tool. On the other hand, something so complex it requires a user to sift through a large manual before starting. In fact, if any beginner sticks to the basics with any tool, most are not terribly difficult to get started with. The biggest beginner mistake in my opinion is attempting to figure out all the features from the get-go. That being said, Wordfast Classic is very easy to get started with and has a large manual because it is actually quite feature-laden.
Kevin Lossner wrote:
I would not suggest crippling yourself by sticking to a macro-based environment that would not help you in later projects where you might be asked to translate files in other formats.
I know plenty of translators making their living off Microsoft Word files. There is no reason to think that a translator will have far less work by focusing on Word files. In addition, translators should be choosing what kinds of files they want to translate. Translators have every right to turn down formats they do not choose to handle just like they have every right to turn down subject matter they do not choose to handle. Just like one can specialize in medical documents, one can also specialize in InDesign or Word.
Michael Popov wrote:
Absolutely agree with that! MemoQ functionality is wonderful, macros-based applications will never provide the same, they are the dead end in CAT's evolution.
Interestingly, one of the major advantages of macro-based tools is that users can typically write their own macros to further customize functionality. And for those who are not macro savvy, tool user lists such as the one mentioned in an earlier post provide a wealth of macros that have already been written for various functions. Also, a major advantage of using a standalone interface is to open software up to other operating systems. Tools like Heartsome, OmegaT, Swordfish, and now Wordfast Pro do this.
Gergely Vandor wrote:
Word is not simple. It has an amazing number of features it has taken up during the decades of its life, and a good deal of those features will actually turn up sooner or later in the documents you translate. I don't even think Word is actually friendly at all for the translator.
This all depends on what your experience is. Word is probably difficult for those who do not know Word. If a user already knows Word, a lot of time can be saved because of the ability to leverage knowledge of Word features. Remember, a beginning TM tool user will also have to learn an entirely new program if it is a standalone interface. In the end, if a developer goes the route of Wordfast, users can choose how they wish to work by using either Wordfast Classic in Word, or Wordfast Pro as a standalone application.
Whatever the case, the more tools a translator knows, the better.
Hope this helps,
Jamie
| | | | | That was bad advice... | Nov 11, 2009 |
Jamie Lucero wrote:
I know plenty of translators making their living off Microsoft Word files. There is no reason to think that a translator will have far less work by focusing on Word files.
I will give you one reason: if I only translated Word files, I would lose 70% of my income. And this is also the case of so many translators whose customers don't care about file formats but about the translation.
In modern times, translators must be prepared to accept and process as many file types as possible. Sticking to MS Word as the only file format quite simply undermines your income potential in a world in which bigger documents are rarely done in Word, online contents is in HTML or XML format, and tons of other documents are based on Powerpoint, Excel, or many other tools. And if you work for agencies, you can be sure that they will not convert their files to Word just so that you can work on them them. They don't have the time. It's either their file format or they go somewhere else.
So all in all, the suggestion that sticking to MS Word is not very future-proof at all.
| | | | Damian Harrison (X)
Germany
Local time: 16:34
German to English
| Wordfast causes reading disabilities | Nov 11, 2009 |
GeorginaW wrote:
However, this [MemoQ] is the first translation memory program I have felt at all at home with and I want to persevere.
Proof that Wordfast causes reading disabilities...
[Edited at 2009-11-11 09:04 GMT]
| | | | GeorginaW (X)
Germany
Local time: 16:34
German to English
TOPIC STARTER | What do you mean | Nov 11, 2009 |
Damian Harrison, M.A. wrote:
Proof that Wordfast causes reading disabilities...
[Edited at 2009-11-11 09:04 GMT]
Sorry, your meaning escapes me.
| | |
|
|
|
Jamie Lucero
United States
Local time: 07:34
French to English
| Missing the point | Nov 11, 2009 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
In modern times, translators must be prepared to accept and process as many file types as possible. Sticking to MS Word as the only file format quite simply undermines your income potential...
I agree with you, but focusing or specializing does not entail full-on rejection of any other format. Like I said, a translator might specialize in medical documents, but that does not mean that said translator must thereby reject any other subject matter. Other subjects should be accepted when there is a lack of jobs in the area of focus. The same goes for document types. And the larger discussion was about where one translates, not so much on what file types one translates. Tools that are integrated with Word are by no means limited to processing Word files. Regardless, even if a translator specializes in MemoQ or some other tool, the same concept applies. Blind rejection of any other tool is silly. Translators should specialize in formats, subject matter, and tools in order to differentiate themselves in the market, but they must also remain flexible and able to work differently when the need arises.
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
And if you work for agencies, you can be sure that they will not convert their files to Word just so that you can work on them them. They don’t have the time. It’s either their file format or they go somewhere else.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t depend on agencies to convert anything for me. All I need is the text to translate. How I do it exactly and what tools I use are up to me. The important thing for the agency is that they get back what was agreed upon in the terms of the project. Also, if an agency is not willing to work with a translator in any way, then I suggest there is no working relationship with that agency. Finally, working with direct clients is a totally different ballgame because the translator should be able to negotiate terms that are preferable to translating like no PDF files when possible.
At any rate, I believe that this discussion has gone completely off the original topic, so I would suggest that any further replies not related directly to the original post be made in a more appropriate forum.
Georgina, I am sure that you will do well with MemoQ. Good luck on your project! 
Jamie
| | | | Damian Harrison (X)
Germany
Local time: 16:34
German to English
My rather oblique comment referred to the fact that some people replied to your appeal for assistance with MemoQ by suggesting you invest another €300 in a completely different tool and then initiated a discussion on the pros and cons of said tool... it may be an interesting discussion, but not for this thread...
| | | | | "macro freedom" vs teamwork and risks | Nov 11, 2009 |
It's very true you can theoretically do wonders with macro programming in Word.
The problem is, those that are actually able to make use of that are a minority so small you need a microscope. How many translators are there with such specialized programming expertise? Even using macros developed by fellow users is way beyond the expertise of an average translator. And a person with such qualities could very soon realize that there are more interesting opportunities out there than hac... See more It's very true you can theoretically do wonders with macro programming in Word.
The problem is, those that are actually able to make use of that are a minority so small you need a microscope. How many translators are there with such specialized programming expertise? Even using macros developed by fellow users is way beyond the expertise of an average translator. And a person with such qualities could very soon realize that there are more interesting opportunities out there than hacking Word.
On the other hand, most translators definitely *will* use all the opportunities Word offers to mess up the document. Back in the day, I personally liked translating in Word, exactly for the tinkering possibilities. But then I had to face that it is completely unsuitable for everyone else in the team I worked with. I don't think I ever saw a Word based translation project without technical errors. Those type of technical errors that are completely imposible to happen with standalone tools that are more "restrictive".
So, if you are a freelancer with no strings attached, you receive source documents and return translated documents, and you can handle Word and use its opportunities, Word can be a win. You can form a great club with the other five similar people in the world.
Gergely ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Dwarves, placed upon the shoulder of giants, see further than the giants themselves... | Nov 12, 2009 |
Gergely Vandor wrote:
It's very true you can theoretically do wonders with macro programming in Word.
The problem is, those that are actually able to make use of that are a minority so small you need a microscope. How many translators are there with such specialized programming expertise? Even using macros developed by fellow users is way beyond the expertise of an average translator.
I agree, most translators are IT dummies but sometimes a good introduction in some existing tool may do miracles.
E.g. for Wordfast, it's sufficient to explain few Pandora Box entries (e.g. Glo* and Placeables*) and you have a monster.
E.g. different colours may be used for hits from different glossaries.
No pain at all.
Just delete three underscores.
I would have different coulours for dfferent glossaries in DVX, MemoQ, Trados etc.
And I would have a freedom to send my terms to a termbase selected on the fly, not to the default one.
And a person with such qualities could very soon realize that there are more interesting opportunities out there than hacking Word.
Not hacking.
Using.
I reserve the "hacking" words for undocumented functions
The problem is nobody reads the f!#g manuals.
On the other hand, most translators definitely *will* use all the opportunities Word offers to mess up the document. Back in the day, I personally liked translating in Word, exactly for the tinkering possibilities. But then I had to face that it is completely unsuitable for everyone else in the team I worked with. I don't think I ever saw a Word based translation project without technical errors. Those type of technical errors that are completely imposible to happen with standalone tools that are more "restrictive".
IMHO you're rather right here.
Another problem, it's difficult to supervise the segment status in Word, especialy in multiuser scenarios.
So, if you are a freelancer with no strings attached, you receive source documents and return translated documents, and you can handle Word and use its opportunities, Word can be a win. You can form a great club with the other five similar people in the world.
Huh, you exagerate
Wordfast has approx. 15000 licences sold.
Even if 99,9 % of it's licensees are IT idiots, approx. 15 of them are not
PS.
I don't like to translate in Word but when I take a closer look on tools like Wordfast or Metatexis, I can see their excellence.
They're highly specialized, splendid tools.
Their world is fading but sometimes I think some modern tools creators should sometimes admit something like "Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident".
No offence.
As Picasso said, "Bad artists copy, great artists steal"
Cheers
GG
[Edited at 2009-11-12 11:21 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| a few explanations | Nov 12, 2009 |
Thanks for your insights, Grzegorz.
I have to admit I don't have much experience with Wordfast, and I didn't want to bash them at all, or their users. My experience is based mostly on projects with Workbench + Word. And I don't want to bash Trados Workbench or their users either. I don't think I said a single bad word of any of these. All I am talking about is the downsides of using Word as a translation interface in general: the shaky workflow, which is prone to all kinds of errors... See more Thanks for your insights, Grzegorz.
I have to admit I don't have much experience with Wordfast, and I didn't want to bash them at all, or their users. My experience is based mostly on projects with Workbench + Word. And I don't want to bash Trados Workbench or their users either. I don't think I said a single bad word of any of these. All I am talking about is the downsides of using Word as a translation interface in general: the shaky workflow, which is prone to all kinds of errors. I did say that translators very often mess up documents in Word, but that is not bashing either, that is just a fact. It's also normal, and it says nothing bad of the translator: if the tool allows document corruption, it will happen, that's it.
By "hacking Word", I was referring to customizing your workflow by custom Word macros and other advanced Word features like regular expression searching, etc. when translating in Word. I was trying to point out these are indeed wonderful opportunities in the right hands, and it could look like a plus. But in reality, very few translators can actually make use of them. So, in my case when I convinced my team to translate some projects in Word, I was that I was pretty happy that I could use regular expression searching, and it made more productive. But about everyone else in the team suffered.
I'm quite open in general to good ideas I see in other tools. (And I find it ridiculous when people complain that "you stole this or that from XY". Would you want to live in a world where any single good idea can only be realized in one tool?) If I only had any time to get to know Wordfast better, I'd be glad. But the problem with memoQ development is not that we don't have enough ideas to make happen. The problem is just the opposite, prioritizing hundreds of feature requests and ideas and do all the work that it takes to turn them into useful features.
Gergely
[Edited at 2009-11-12 13:21 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | a few explanations (re:) | Nov 12, 2009 |
Gergely Vandor wrote:
Thanks for your insights, Grzegorz.
I have to admit I don't have much experience with Wordfast, and I didn't want to bash them at all, or their users. My experience is based mostly on projects with Workbench + Word.
Except few placeable related functions, Wordfast is decidely more intelligent than the Workbench + Word combo.
The next time I'll go to Budapest, ask me a little presentation
And I don't want to bash Trados Workbench or their users either. I don't think I said a single bad word of any of these.
Even if you see screaming posts kinda "I just purchased Trados. HELP!!! What should I do now"?
Me, I can't resist
All I am talking about is the downsides of using Word as a translation interface in general: the shaky workflow, which is prone to all kinds of errors. quote]
IMHO you're right.
It's impossible to securely manage complex workflows in Word.
But Word based tools are still good enough in simpler scenarios, especially for one user case.
BTW.
I never used Word based tool (e.g. Wordfast) for a non Word translation.
E.g., for Excel and Powerpoint, the standard Wordfast approach is weird and unpractical for me, the Werecats or similar tools add additional steps to the workflow, so I think external editors like MQ, DVX, Trados etc. make it simply easier and better.
Cheers
GG
| | | | M-A-Z
Local time: 16:34
German to English
+ ...
| A uniform user interface saves time and money | May 27, 2010 |
I fully agree with Jamie Lucero in that users who - like me - make the fullest use of Word text-handling features loose a lot of time handling text elements in separate program interfaces in a way that evokes the old days of typewriting for the simple reason that companies like SDL fail to provide the standard Windows and Word features.
In WinAlign (Trados Studio) you can’t even scroll down the edit window without the display leaping back and forward. I would loose much of my inc... See more I fully agree with Jamie Lucero in that users who - like me - make the fullest use of Word text-handling features loose a lot of time handling text elements in separate program interfaces in a way that evokes the old days of typewriting for the simple reason that companies like SDL fail to provide the standard Windows and Word features.
In WinAlign (Trados Studio) you can’t even scroll down the edit window without the display leaping back and forward. I would loose much of my income pre- and post-processing texts for use in a separate program, struggling with formats, importing and exporting files (Trados!) and switching language pairs instead of having one database for both directions.
For the same reason I dislike PowerPoint and Excel files. Microsoft didn’t bother to provide them with the same operating concept (names, menu structure, shortcuts), making translators loose time.
Andreas ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » MemoQ novice with problems | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
