stefan kreckwitz senior system engineer across systems gmbh „future web-based translation...

Post on 24-Dec-2015

213 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Stefan KreckwitzSenior System Engineer

across Systems GmbH

„Future Web-Based Translation Environments“

Localisation Research Forum28 September 2007, Dublin, Ireland

Overview

Introduction

Web 1.0 and Translation Environments

Web 2.0 Translation Environments

The Challenges

Outlook

Introduction

Shortcomings of Translation Environments SW-installation, updates, patches

MS Windows-based

Frequent data synchronisations

Results reach the team with delay

Continuing work on another PC is difficult

A Possible Solution

Where is the problem?

Web 1.0 and Translation Environments

Translation Environments - Overview

Translation Environments - Overview

Translation Environments - Overview

More than hundred person years development MS Windows applications Thick clients

GUI and business logic create local CPU load

High interaction between Source / target text

Translation memory (TM)

Terminology

Quality assurance

Rich set of features…

Translation Environments - Features Editing

Different language keyboards and input method editors

WYSIWYG editing of styles, user-friendly insertion of tags

Autotext / autoreplace

Efficient transfer of matches

Comments and bookmarks

Navigation Mouse and keyboard shortcuts

Segmentation Expansion and shrinking segments

Translation Environments - Features Display

Highlighting of TM/terminology matches and numbers

Quality errors (spelling error underlining)

WYSIWYG preview for source/target text

Search Concordance search

Search in source/target

Terminology/TM search with filters

Quality assurance Spell checking

Checking of number formats, styles, tags, etc.

Conventional Web Applications (Web 1.0) Mostly read-only Small degree of interactivity Form-based Full page reloading for displaying different data sets Common usage in the translation industry:

Project portals

Terminology systems

Conclusion

Web 1.0 applications could not meet the requirements for translation environments: Interactivity

Poor user experience

Missing know how about building complex applications

Web 2.0 Translation Environments

Web 2.0 Applications Phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2003 Social aspects

Collaboration and sharing

Examples: Social networks, wikis, blogs

Technological aspects Smart re-loading

PC-equivalent interactivity

Examples

MS Live search

Google Docs & Spreadsheets

Web 2.0 Translation Environments Today

Web 2.0 Translation Environments Today

Web 2.0 Translation Environments Today

Still restricted functionality Mainly core features

Less automatisms

For some projects benefits overweigh For other projects it can mean

More time

Higher costs

Lower quality

The Challenges

The Challenges Replace Windows specific components Move load to a server Split heavy processes into lightweight processes Implement smart re-loading Adjust usability Consider Browser specific problems Internet speed and availability

The ChallengesThere is a high dynamic: Web 2.0 tools are getting rapidly more powerful Developers gain experience day by day Benefits will push the process of convergence First Internet offline solutions

are available (Google gears) High speed Internet

is getting ubiquitous

Mixed solutions will be necessary for the near future

On long term Web 2.0 solutionswill dominate

Outlook

Outlook – More Web 2.0 Solutions Web 2.0 applications for further tasks

AlignmentTerm extractionTerm translationAuthor assistance

Outlook- Software As a Service

Trend away from the purchase of softwareCharge costs on basis of the utilizationFull-stack function scope requiredProvider cares about

Hardware

Installation

Maintenance

AdministrationNo software life cycle, but continuous improvements

Harnessing Collective Intelligence Key-feature of successful Web 2.0 applications

Wikipedia

Googles Page Rank

Wikipedia-like Terminology DBs and TMs Pros

Can reduce cost and time „Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow“

Cons Quality Security Confidentiality Intellectual property rights

Acceptance is unknown

Thank you!

Contact:

www.across.net

Stefan Kreckwitz

skreckwitzATacross.net

top related