TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
RE: Looking for totally subjective opinions on HATs
Subject:RE: Looking for totally subjective opinions on HATs From:"Gretchen Rogers" <grogers -at- author-it -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:34:33 +1300
Hi Tom,
I certainly agree - small chunks of information make it difficult (if
not impossible) to determine context and this can impact on the quality
of translation.
That's why we suggest including a PDF of the entire document (we refer
to it as a "context document") to assist the translators. Objects that
are in a release state where you have also defined a review color,
appear highlighted in this document making it easier for a translator to
quickly determine context, or for a reviewer to identify what content
should be reviewed.
The translators work with the new/modified content in the XML file, but
the PDF assists them with determining overall context...
Regards,
Gretchen :-)
(AuthorIT)
> In case some of the resident translators don't jump in ...
>
> You may need to balance your increased ROI against your
> translation quality.
> Translating the changed/new bits ONLY is likely to be as
> successful as DTPing the changed/new bits ONLY would be :-)
>
> You're possibly (almost certainly in the case of a loc
> vendor) asking one writer to write chunks of a book without
> any reference to the rest of the book which has been written
> by other writers. This is not impossible to do if you work in
> a well-defined application area, use controlled language and
> have comprehensive glossaries for both your source and target
> languages. The translator can put the localized bits through
> her standard Translate/Edit/Proof (TEP) cycle, but that only
> checks for consistency within the chunks. You really should
> plan on an edit pass of the complete localized work.
>
> A better process would be to:
> a) send everything to the translator/vendor
> b) identify the changed/new bits
> c) pay for the translation of the changed/new bits - a TM can
> help with lowering this cost
> d) pay for an edit of the changed/new bits in the context of
> the complete work - a TM doesn't help lowering this cost, and
> your translator/vendor would probably charge an hourly rate
> for the work
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Your Ad Here! Have a product or service you'd like to get some attention for? Use this space to get the word out! Contact lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com for more details.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.