Forum: CAT Tools Technical Help
Topic: Why are more and more agencies these days choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their "preferred" tool?
Poster: 2nl
Post title: Efficiency for whom?
[quote]Dominique Pivard:
If you (as the agency owner) can handle the same amount of business with 2 PMs instead of 3 (thanks to higher efficiency/productivity), the "expensive" software will have more than paid for itself.
[/quote]
Yes, I guess that this is the way it works. But what is efficient for a PM, isn't necessarily efficient for a freelance translator (like me). For instance, I think that the memoQ server workflow (whenever I have to use it), is costing me a lot of time. Time in which I cannot translate.
And there's also the project configuration aspect:
[quote]Michael Beijer
For example, I just finished a Studio project. No problem, I did it and sent it back, but the client had adjusted certain settings such that a whole bunch of incorrect segmentation was locked down in the file (an .sdlppx file) they sent me, so I couldn't merge or split segments in CafeTran. A pain in the a$$, and in no way conducive to high quality work.
[/quote]
I often get Studio and memoQ projects that haven't been configured correctly:
One could argue that it is my task to get familiair with these market-leading CAT tools, so that I can adjust the project settings. On the other hand: isn't that what PMs are for?
Many of the issues I have to deal with, are caused by my clients' attempts to automate their workflows (which is an understandable desire):
[quote]Dan Lucas:
These agencies want to track, measure and automate as much of that workflow as possible. They're looking for companies that offer a software platform that supports this, even if some components of that platform may be inferior to other applications in certain ways.
...
Incidentally, note that very few companies are going to build a workflow that depends on one person, a single point of failure. Take the developer of CafeTran, for example. As far as I can see he's a lone wolf. By all accounts he does a great job given his limited resources, but what happens if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? I'm pretty sure CafeTran would disappear with him. That's not a risk I'd be comfortable with if I were making a decision on which LSP platform to select.
[/quote]
Some PMs use templates that relate to all language that they have to handle. A kind of universal templates, with all kind of resources included – even when these resources don't contain a single entry for my particular language combination.
Is this efficient? Not for me. I have to check whether these huge termbases and TMs contain any relevant info (they hardly ever do).
Then there is this bus saga about Wordfast Classic, MetaTexis and CafeTran etc. For me it is no question that these developers have arranged that in case of crossing busses their code will be be handled by another responsible employee, business partner etc. Developers are not unique, no matter how talented they are. So another (hired) developer can and will continue development. (An interesting article that touches the replaceability of software developers: [url removed] )
And let us see this in perspective: there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program. Operating systems change. DTP software and other related software change, so CAT tools constantly have to adapt to this changing input. Look at WordStar, WordPerfect etc. They once were top of the bill. A market leader can easily lose its leading position:
[quote]Neil at [url removed]
Surely the simple answer to all this, which would satisfy many people, is to declare MemoQ 2014 R2 as the stable production release and declare 2015 as the beta release.
[/quote]
(There's a long thread about problems with memoQ that freelancer have to deal with.)
While there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program, there are many examples where the products of these programs cause troubles after their life cycle: legacy file formats (like TTX).
Topic: Why are more and more agencies these days choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their "preferred" tool?
Poster: 2nl
Post title: Efficiency for whom?
[quote]Dominique Pivard:
If you (as the agency owner) can handle the same amount of business with 2 PMs instead of 3 (thanks to higher efficiency/productivity), the "expensive" software will have more than paid for itself.
[/quote]
Yes, I guess that this is the way it works. But what is efficient for a PM, isn't necessarily efficient for a freelance translator (like me). For instance, I think that the memoQ server workflow (whenever I have to use it), is costing me a lot of time. Time in which I cannot translate.
And there's also the project configuration aspect:
[quote]Michael Beijer
For example, I just finished a Studio project. No problem, I did it and sent it back, but the client had adjusted certain settings such that a whole bunch of incorrect segmentation was locked down in the file (an .sdlppx file) they sent me, so I couldn't merge or split segments in CafeTran. A pain in the a$$, and in no way conducive to high quality work.
[/quote]
I often get Studio and memoQ projects that haven't been configured correctly:
- QA rules (from a template?) that make no sense, but do cost me a lot of time.
- Wrong segmentation.
- Error messages that I have to close (because of all kind of resources that weren't included in the package)
- etc.
One could argue that it is my task to get familiair with these market-leading CAT tools, so that I can adjust the project settings. On the other hand: isn't that what PMs are for?
Many of the issues I have to deal with, are caused by my clients' attempts to automate their workflows (which is an understandable desire):
[quote]Dan Lucas:
These agencies want to track, measure and automate as much of that workflow as possible. They're looking for companies that offer a software platform that supports this, even if some components of that platform may be inferior to other applications in certain ways.
...
Incidentally, note that very few companies are going to build a workflow that depends on one person, a single point of failure. Take the developer of CafeTran, for example. As far as I can see he's a lone wolf. By all accounts he does a great job given his limited resources, but what happens if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? I'm pretty sure CafeTran would disappear with him. That's not a risk I'd be comfortable with if I were making a decision on which LSP platform to select.
[/quote]
Some PMs use templates that relate to all language that they have to handle. A kind of universal templates, with all kind of resources included – even when these resources don't contain a single entry for my particular language combination.
Is this efficient? Not for me. I have to check whether these huge termbases and TMs contain any relevant info (they hardly ever do).
Then there is this bus saga about Wordfast Classic, MetaTexis and CafeTran etc. For me it is no question that these developers have arranged that in case of crossing busses their code will be be handled by another responsible employee, business partner etc. Developers are not unique, no matter how talented they are. So another (hired) developer can and will continue development. (An interesting article that touches the replaceability of software developers: [url removed] )
And let us see this in perspective: there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program. Operating systems change. DTP software and other related software change, so CAT tools constantly have to adapt to this changing input. Look at WordStar, WordPerfect etc. They once were top of the bill. A market leader can easily lose its leading position:
[quote]Neil at [url removed]
Surely the simple answer to all this, which would satisfy many people, is to declare MemoQ 2014 R2 as the stable production release and declare 2015 as the beta release.
[/quote]
(There's a long thread about problems with memoQ that freelancer have to deal with.)
While there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program, there are many examples where the products of these programs cause troubles after their life cycle: legacy file formats (like TTX).