The impact of user interfaces for CAT on time, quality and user satisfaction

443 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
443
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The impact of user interfaces for CAT on time, quality and user satisfaction

  1. 1. The impact of user interfaces for CATon time, quality and user satisfaction Author: Lisa Koeman Supervisor: Christof Monz
  2. 2. Why?
  3. 3. An example: Internet population over the years 1990 0,1% 8% 15% 0,2% 77% Africa Asia Europe Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean Oceania / Australia
  4. 4. An example: Internet population over the years 2011 1990 1% 0,1% 6% 10% 8% 15% 13% 0,2% 3% 44% 77% 23% Africa Asia Europe Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean Oceania / Australia
  5. 5. An example: Internet population over the years 2011 1% 6% 10% 13% 1990 3% 44% 23% Africa Asia Europe Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean Oceania / Australia
  6. 6. How can we make all this information accessible to all people?
  7. 7. Machine translationSource text Machine translation
  8. 8. But...
  9. 9. Machine translation “The machine “De automatischetranslations simply vertalingen eenvoudig arent perfect” zijn niet perfect”
  10. 10. However, machine translationdoes bring speed & consistency So...
  11. 11. Computer-aided TranslationSource text Machine translation Final translation
  12. 12. Whether and to what extent do different translation interfaces impact the post- editing task?
  13. 13. How?
  14. 14. Functionality analysisEight experimental translation interfaces
  15. 15. Experimental design - time per word - correct for translators’ time speed qualityuser satisfaction ti (x,y)−tx,y n ¯ ¯ tx,y ×100 ¯ d= i=1 s
  16. 16. Experimental design time qualityuser satisfaction team of judges κw = 1 − wij poij wij pcij
  17. 17. Experimental design time qualityuser satisfaction survey
  18. 18. What?
  19. 19. Results: time 9,00 6,75Frequency 4,50 2,25 0 -0,225 -0,150 -0,075 0 0,075 0,150 0,225 0,300 Time per word (in minutes) Source text only Source text + machine translation Machine translation only Source text + machine translation + alternatives
  20. 20. Results: quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 51 15 4 0 1 0 1 13 5 2 1 12 9 14 7 4 7 2 4 11 6 6 83 4 7 9 5 14 3 6 3 10 11 84 5 9 11 14 12 4 3 5 12 15 205 10 3 10 8 10 5 2 6 10 12 12 Adequacy Fluency
  21. 21. Results: user satisfaction 13% 29% 58% Preference for sentence view Preference for document view No preference
  22. 22. One ofthe results
  23. 23. Results: an example ‘Document view’ ‘Sentence view’Signi cantly less time Signi cantly better quality Signi cantly preferred
  24. 24. Inconclusion
  25. 25. 1Presented a way to compare translation interfaces
  26. 26. 2 Found signi cant differences intime, quality and user satisfaction between translation interfaces
  27. 27. 3 Contributed to existing CAT researchand looked at translator behaviour
  28. 28. 4 Results can be used as recommendations for the development of translation interfaces,although further research is recommended
  29. 29. Any questions?contact: lisa.koeman@student.uva.nl

×