Forum: CAT Tools Technical Help
Topic: Efficiency of using CAT tools in comparison to using none
Poster: B D Finch
Post title: Don't know, yes and yes
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
CAT tool users, in terms of percentage, how much more efficient are you in your work thanks to CAT tools? [/quote]
No idea and wouldn't want to waste time finding out.
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
Was adapting to a new system worth your while?
[/quote]
Yes. I started with Wordfast Classic, which is an add-on to MS Word, so not too steep a learning curve. Then moved on to Wordfast Pro and it's a long time since I used Wordfast Classic. The latest WFP5 has had some teething problems and one thing I like rather less about it is that it's a more closed system, so can't share TMs and glossaries with WF Classic as I used to. That makes me more dependent upon it not breaking down.
I like the segmentation, which both makes me look at smaller chunks and is a safeguard against missing anything out. Obviously, automatic leverage of repetitions is a time-saver and ensures consistency. Also seeing previously translated close matches below what I'm translating, with the differences picked out in different colours is useful and sometimes prompts me to rethink and modify a previously translated segment. It also prevents me from mistakenly repeating a near-match translation, which might be wrong because of a small, but significant, difference.
Being able to add terms to glossaries, together with reference notes to support or qualify the glossary entry is extremely useful, as is the highlighting of glossary-listed terms in the current segment.
Adding notes as I go along is very useful. Some of these notes are intended for the client and some are for myself, to highlight things I want to review or research later. At the end, I can export any notes that I haven't dealt with and deleted and send them to the client as translator's notes. Or, I might do this part of the way through, just picking out the notes I want the client to comment on while I'm still translating the document. The final notes might also include supporting information on why I made a particular choice, or a comment on a problem with the source text.
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
Would you say that translators who don't use any such tools are missing out on something?
[/quote]
Yes.
So, what are the downsides?
1. Cost of the CAT tool;
2. Danger of becoming too dependent upon it and relying less on memory;
3. Not looking at the text in its proper format while translating. This isn't a problem, as I have the original document open on annother screen and refer to it as needed.
4. Occasional, time-wasting technical problems.
5. Tags can be a pain, but they do get the correct formatting copied directly to the translated document.
[Edited at 2018-08-13 15:25 GMT]
Topic: Efficiency of using CAT tools in comparison to using none
Poster: B D Finch
Post title: Don't know, yes and yes
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
CAT tool users, in terms of percentage, how much more efficient are you in your work thanks to CAT tools? [/quote]
No idea and wouldn't want to waste time finding out.
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
Was adapting to a new system worth your while?
[/quote]
Yes. I started with Wordfast Classic, which is an add-on to MS Word, so not too steep a learning curve. Then moved on to Wordfast Pro and it's a long time since I used Wordfast Classic. The latest WFP5 has had some teething problems and one thing I like rather less about it is that it's a more closed system, so can't share TMs and glossaries with WF Classic as I used to. That makes me more dependent upon it not breaking down.
I like the segmentation, which both makes me look at smaller chunks and is a safeguard against missing anything out. Obviously, automatic leverage of repetitions is a time-saver and ensures consistency. Also seeing previously translated close matches below what I'm translating, with the differences picked out in different colours is useful and sometimes prompts me to rethink and modify a previously translated segment. It also prevents me from mistakenly repeating a near-match translation, which might be wrong because of a small, but significant, difference.
Being able to add terms to glossaries, together with reference notes to support or qualify the glossary entry is extremely useful, as is the highlighting of glossary-listed terms in the current segment.
Adding notes as I go along is very useful. Some of these notes are intended for the client and some are for myself, to highlight things I want to review or research later. At the end, I can export any notes that I haven't dealt with and deleted and send them to the client as translator's notes. Or, I might do this part of the way through, just picking out the notes I want the client to comment on while I'm still translating the document. The final notes might also include supporting information on why I made a particular choice, or a comment on a problem with the source text.
[quote]Richard Varga wrote:
Would you say that translators who don't use any such tools are missing out on something?
[/quote]
Yes.
So, what are the downsides?
1. Cost of the CAT tool;
2. Danger of becoming too dependent upon it and relying less on memory;
3. Not looking at the text in its proper format while translating. This isn't a problem, as I have the original document open on annother screen and refer to it as needed.
4. Occasional, time-wasting technical problems.
5. Tags can be a pain, but they do get the correct formatting copied directly to the translated document.
[Edited at 2018-08-13 15:25 GMT]