Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ICL Translation Memories Survey 2006

3,311

Published on

Presentation at ASLIB International Conference 'Translating and the Computer 28', London, November 2006.

Presentation at ASLIB International Conference 'Translating and the Computer 28', London, November 2006.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,311
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. TM Survey 2006 Imperial College London Elina Lagoudaki PhD candidate e.lagoudaki@imperial.ac.uk Presented at the ASLIB Conference ‘Translating & the Computer 28’, London 15-16 November 2006
  • 2. Translation Memories Survey 2006 Previous surveys ‣ LISA 2002 Translation Memory Survey ‣ eColore Translation Memory Survey 2003 ‣ LISA 2004 Translation Memory Survey 2
  • 3. Translation Memories Survey 2006 Facts & Figures ‣ Duration: 2 months (July-August 2006) ‣ Survey mechanics: Internet ‣ Language: English ‣ Number of responses: 874 ‣ 54 countries, all language combinations 3
  • 4. Translation Memories Survey 2006 Structure of results 1. Participants’ profiles 2. Work environment and practices 3. TM usage rate and issues relating to non-use 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 6. Future directions: visualising the ideal TM tool 4
  • 5. 1. Participants’ profiles 1/5 Profession 90% Translators Other 64 Interpreter 13 Subtitler 28 Terminologist 33 Reviewer/Proofreader 59 Project Manager 85 Translator 785 0 200 400 600 800 5
  • 6. 1. Participants’ profiles 2/5 Working status 73% Freelancers 10% Company employee (other industry) 9% Company employee (translation/localisation) 8% Company owner 6% Freelancer working cooperatively with other freelancers 19% Freelancer working closely with an agency 48% Freelancer working independently without an agency 0 25 50 75 100 6
  • 7. 1. Participants’ profiles 3/5 Qualifications 89% hold a professional qualification 5% 3% 13% 11% No qualification University degree 68% Other qualification Certificate by a private institution Certificate by a professionals’ association 7
  • 8. 1. Participants’ profiles 4/5 Computer usage competence 64% with ‘good’ computer skills 100 75 64% 50 30% 25 6% 0% 0 No skills Adequate Good Excellent 8
  • 9. 1. Participants’ profiles 5/5 Age - Length of work experience 20-30 years old - 21% less than 5 years - 29% 31-40 - 29% 5-10 years - 28% 41-50 - 24% 10-15 years - 17% over 50 years old - 25% 15-20 years - 12% 20-30 years - 10% 30-50 years - 3% 9
  • 10. 2. Work environment and practices 1/6 Area of specialisation 61% specialise in technical texts Technical (incl. medical & scientific) 61% Anything/ Everything else 15% Legal 9% Marketing material 8% Financial 4% Literature 3% 0 25 50 75 100 10
  • 11. 2. Work environment and practices 2/6 File formats Other file formats 7% DTP files 12% Hardcopy documents 19% HTML, XML files 26% PDF files 43% MS Word/Excel/PowerPoint, rich/plain text 96% 0 25 50 75 100 11
  • 12. 2. Work environment and practices 3/6 Operating system 2% 2% 4% Windows OS Mac OS Linux Combination of various OS 92% 12
  • 13. 2. Work environment and practices 4/6 Uses of the Internet ✓ communication/ e-mail (reception, processing and delivery of translation orders, communication with colleagues/ clients) - 87% ✓ source of knowledge (information on specialised areas, reference texts) - 81% ✓ source of linguistic information (terminology, usage examples, contexts) - 77% ✓ to download other software - 31% ✓ to download translation software - 29% ✓ for other use - 10% 13
  • 14. 2. Work environment and practices 5/6 Translation research methods 30 30% 20 21% 17% 15% 10 13% 0 1 2 3 4 5 in old in on the in hardcopy on the dictionaries Internet: dictionaries Internet: in translations /glossaries /glossaries online /glossaries a search engine (e.g. that I have in CD- dictionaries ROMs /glossaries Google) 14
  • 15. 2. Work environment and practices 6/6 Translation research methods 10 5 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 ask a on the ask a on the in printed on the Internet: in colleague subject Internet: in texts on Internet: monolingual expert bilingual the subject ask texts on the texts on questions subject the subject in a forum 15
  • 16. 3. TM usage rate and issues relating to non- use 1/4 Strong relationship with: Yes No 100 area of specialisation computer usage competence 75 82.5% content repetition 50 Not related to: 25 age 17.5% 0 years of work experience TM use 16
  • 17. 3. TM usage rate and issues relating to non- use 2/4 TM use & participants’ profiles Project Managers Reviewers/Proofreaders Yes No Terminologists Subtitlers 100 Translators 92% Other translation professionals 84% 81% 75 Interpreters 100 50 75 19% 25 16% 8% 50 0 Company Company Freelancers 25 owners employees 0 Yes No 17
  • 18. 3. TM usage rate and issues relating to non- use 3/4 Reasons for not using a TM system ‣ Not suitable for my work (28%) ‣ I have a TM software but I have not learned how to use it yet (16%) ‣ The one I want costs too much (14%) ‣ I’ve never heard of such tools (11%) ‣ I've been told they cost too much (11%) ‣ I have tried and evaluated one/several but didn’t like any (5%) ‣ Lack of time/energy to find a suitable one and learn how to use it (4%) ‣ I was using one in the past but it didn’t bring any real benefit to my work (3%) 18
  • 19. 3. TM usage rate and issues relating to non- use 4/4 Trends for non-users of TM Yes No Popular TM systems 100 76% TRADOS 61% Déjà Vu 75 51% Wordfast 71% 49% SDL Trados 2006 50 36% SDLX 25% STAR Transit 25 29% 18% MultiTrans 11% PASSOLO 0 10% Omega-T Planning to try out a TM system and possibly buy 19
  • 20. 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 1/5 Training on TM systems 51% No training 18% Yes, attended a course/seminar 12% Yes, by my company/ translation agency 7% Yes, by the software developer 7% Yes, the training was part of an academic course I did 5% Other training 0 25 50 75 100 20
  • 21. 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 2/5 Length of TM usage - Level of usage 100 100% 75-99% 50-75% 25-50% <25% 75 13% 50 27% 31% 11% 21% 25 18% 13% 10% 6% 11% 0 <1 1-2 2-5 5-7 7-10 >10 38% year years years years years years 21
  • 22. 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 3/5 Perceived benefits • it saves time (86%) • the consistency in terminology improves (83%) • the quality of the translation output improves (70%) • cost savings (34%) • best way to exchange resources (such as glossaries and TM databases) (31%) 22
  • 23. 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 4/5 Tasks performed with a TM system • • checks for the client's translation (96%) proprietary needs (19%) • terminology management • comparing and merging projects (51%) (16%) • quality assurance checks: with • splitting TM databases to create regard to terminology (49%), project memories (14%) consistency (49%) and completeness (43%) • importing suppliers’ TMs for in- • house use (13%) project management-related tasks: analysis for quotation • exchanging translation and/or invoicing (43%) resources with colleagues (8%) • terminology extraction (24%) 23
  • 24. 4. Perceptions and practices around TM usage 5/5 Ways to fill a TM database • the database, initially empty, gets filled up as the user translates (74%) • by aligning legacy translations with their originals in order to produce a database (51%) • by importing the client’s TM (44%) • by importing the company’s TM (28%) • by downloading pairs of parallel texts from the Web and then aligning them (15%) • by aligning a ready-made bilingual parallel corpus (12%) • I use an external TM database that exists on a remote server (6%) 24
  • 25. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 1/6 Number of TM systems used • 53% of TM users use multiple systems • 1-8 tools, average: 2.21 tools • average number of tools ~ length of time using TM % using more than average number of User category one system TM systems Freelancers 52% 3.23 Company owners 54% 3.46 Company employees 58% 3.46 25
  • 26. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 2/6 Most widely used TM systems TRADOS 51% Wordfast 29% SDL Trados 2006 24% Déjà Vu 23% SDLX 19% STAR Transit 14% Alchemy CATALYST 8% Omega-T 7% Logoport 6% PASSOLO 5% CatsCradle 4% 4% ENLASO Localization Tools Internal tool 3% My own tool 3% 0 25 50 75 100 26
  • 27. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 3/6 TM systems & computer usage competence Déjà Vu SDLX STAR Transit TRADOS Wordfast 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.15 0 Adequate Good Excellent 27
  • 28. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 4/6 Single most frequently used TM system 40 35% 30 20 17% 16% 15% 10 7% 4% 3% 3% 0 SDL SDLX Omega-T STAR TRADOS Wordfast Déjà Vu Other Transit Trados 2006 28
  • 29. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 5/6 Evaluation Functional criteria Non-functional criteria • • Functionality Reliability • • Efficiency in match recall Usability • • Efficiency in match Learnability precision • Value for money • Efficiency in speed • Customer support 29
  • 30. 5. Evaluation of TM systems based on users’ preferences and experience 6/6 Evaluation TRADOS Déjà Vu Wordfast SDL Trados 2006 Functionality 3.5 4.1 3.9 3.6 Efficiency in 3.3 3.8 3.4 3.3 match recall Efficiency in 3.3 3.8 3.4 3.8 match precision Efficiency in 3.7 4.1 3.9 3.7 speed Reliability 3.3 4.1 3.8 3.4 Usability 3.5 4.2 4.2 3.5 Learnability 3.3 4.0 4.1 3.4 Value for money 2.9 4.3 4.6 3.1 Customer 2.5 3.7 3.7 2.6 Support Average rating 3.3 4.0 3.9 3.4 30
  • 31. 6. Future directions: visualising the ideal TM tool 1/4 Importance of future developments handle text in embedded illustrations TMX and SRX compliance handle PDF files integrated spellcheckers display some context for the suggested match construct fuzzy matches from existing resources view full source text in the original preview target full text 1 2 3 4 Somewhat Very Not Not important important important very at all important 31
  • 32. 6. Future directions: visualising the ideal TM tool 2/4 Text processing environment - Software solution 56% 60 80 76% 60 40 40 22% 20% 20 20 24% 3% 0 0 Microsoft The TM’s Any of Other Single modularised Several applications Word environment those two application linked dynamically 32
  • 33. 6. Future directions: visualising the ideal TM tool 3/4 Features related to language resources Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Don’t important important important important know ability to access dictionaries/ glossaries in CD-ROMs through 50% 30% 13% 5% 2% my TM tool ability to locate bilingual parallel texts on my subject on the Web, download them and store them in 44% 31% 16% 7% 2% my TM database for future use or reference ability to locate webpages on the Web that contain glossaries for my subject and language pair, and 44% 34% 15% 5% 2% bookmark them in a facility within the TM tool so that I can access them through my TM tool 33
  • 34. 6. Future directions: visualising the ideal TM tool 4/4 “ ...a feature-rich, single small-scale tool that is highly-adaptable to individual translators' needs, [...] that places preference on new features that enable a translator to get started quickly on any format [and] to access additional reference materials more directly (CD dictionaries, major online dictionaries, bilingual ” parallel texts)... “ One full-fledged app please, but make it modular, so you can keep tasks apart when necessary, and with a well documented and powerful API, so that add-ons like e. g. language-specific assembly algorithms can be made and plugged in. I don't mind paying, but I do mind closed source lock-in effects and strongly resent platform lock-in. ” 34

×