I have chosen to compare memoQ to
Trados since the latter is the market-leader in CAT tools, and is therefore
memoQ’s major rival. I have identified
the major areas of CAT tool functionalities to present a comprehensive comparison
whilst bearing conceptual considerations and authentic professional
applications in mind.
File Analysis & Invoicing
An integral part of undertaking a
translation job is the ability to assess source files to deduce a project’s
scope and the savings to be made from a tool’s application (Austermühl , 2001: 142). Further, the ability to derive
an accurate invoice from such information is also important (Esselink, c2000:
364).
Both memoQ and Trados Studio provide
detailed and customizable file analyses at the global and active document level
detailing the standard references of word counts, segment counts and fuzzy
matches. However, two features unique to memoQ are homogeneity and the ability
to quantify formatting tags in the word count. Homogeneity estimates potential
gains from internal leverage, i.e. a kind of internal fuzzy matching, and the translator
thereby gains a greater understanding of time-cost savings and may pass this on
to a client.
Although both Trados and memoQ can
count tags, the latter is unique in its ability to quantify the additional time
factor inherent in dealing with heavily-tagged documents such as HTML files; -
something many translators feel should be reflected in invoices. Thus a
tag-to-word proportion can be entered (i.e. how many words the translator
thinks are equivalent to the average tag) which increases the overall word
count.
Both tools offer comprehensive file analysis statistics
although memoQ is more readily tuned towards the task of invoicing and
quantifying workloads. What is more, statistical reports can be generated in
memoQ and exported at any time, -perhaps to a project manager during a long,
multi-document project, whilst Trados can only export an initial statistical
report.
Support for complex language
scripts
A feature common to both memoQ and
Trados 2009 is the use of an asterisk or pipe (*, |) to act as a de facto fuzzy
match feature for when terms are entered into a TB. Unfortunately, this feature
does not work with Arabic in memoQ but is successful in Trados, and the problem
is compounded because memoQ has no terminology fuzzy match; it fails to
recognize Arabic words with the definite article prefix attached even if they
were originally saved as indefinite or vice versa, and this is a major translation issue for Arabic.
The ‘workaround’ solution in MemoQ is
to perform a look up or wildcard concordance search though this has to be
performed manually in a separate dialogue box.
Trados overwhelming excels in this
aspect of automatic fuzzy term recognition as it accepts the asterisk and pipe
signifiers and it can also perform wildcard termbase searches within the
immediate translation environment.
Aside from term retrieval issues,
complex language scripts such as Arabic also affect the display and interface.
Trados is unable to display Arabic, Russian and the CKJ languages in its
preview mode for HTML files, and letters/characters are displayed as question
marks.
For its part memoQ offers superb
real time previews and is able to display all complex language scripts. Overall,
whilst memoQ offers far better display and preview of complex languages, Trados
is superior in its handling of them concerning fuzzy/wildcard terminology recognition.
Translation
memory (TM); features and management
Translation memories enable the
reuse of previously translated segments, known as ‘leveraging’ (Bowker, c2002:
92). The flexibility and efficacy of TM usage in memoQ and Trados 2009 can be
compared by testing whether TMs can be easily transferred from one project to
another where language data differs slightly (i.e. with sublanguages), and
indeed, whether or not TMs can be reversed to function in the inverse language
pair.
When a document composed of TUs
made in the opposite language pair is opened, we see that memoQ immediately recognizes
this and all TMs (and TBs) in the project are able to function without the need
to manually change the language pair or create new TMs. Furthermore, memoQ TMs function even when the
sublanguages differ (i.e. Ar Lebanon instead of Ar Jordan).
The same experiment in Trados
reveals that TMs and TBs are not bidirectional and can neither function across
sublanguages;
This
problem can only be solved by exporting the original TM in TMX format, and
creating a new empty TM in the inverse language pair direction and importing
the data. Nevertheless this is more work for the translator especially in a
project setting where they may be sent a TM or TB by a client and find they are
unable to utilize it without creating new resources.
Transaltors
wish to leverage as many TUs as possible from previous tranlations submitted to
TMs. MemoQ however goes further in offering automated fragment assembly. This
intelligently recognizes
source segments which have previously been translated as part of larger TUs by
intuitively searching at the subsegment level.
The second feature, TM-driven segmentation, allows
MemoQ to intuitively join and split segments to find a match. Trados Studio
does not have features approaching this kind of functionality although
segmentation settings can be customized.
Terminology management
Terminology management involves the
creation and maintenance of term bases so that terms do not have to be
retranslated every time they appear, as well as to provide consistency (Savourel,
c2001: 281). As previously noted, memoQ term bases can operate bidirectionally
and across sublanguages. This flexibility is significant as it offers full
compatibility of translation resources so that TBs received from clients or
project managers in other sublanguages can be leveraged. MemoQ projects allow
any number of TBs (and TMs) to be utilized at the same time while Trados 2009
allows just one (with others for reference).
-Term extraction
An excellent productivity and term
management tool in memoQ called term extraction allows translators to intuitively
create term bases by an automated search process at the file or project level that
identifies suitable TB candidates. Statistical analyses generate frequently occurring
terms words ignoring common ‘stop words’ (this is also customizable). If the
resultant candidate terms are already in existing TMs/TBs, they are
automatically translated, whilst the remaining terms are displayed in context
so that they can be translated accurately.
The extraction tool is an effective way for translators
to quickly and efficiently create terminology resources for a new translation
job, and finding out how many terms can be leveraged from exisitng translation
resources. Trados for its part does not come with an extraction tool, and if it
did it would still require exisiting TBs/TMs to be in the correct langauge
direction to benefit from exisitng resources, and as we have seen, inverting
langauge directions require further efforts in Trados.
Terminology management in Trados is perfomed through
its Multiterm package which can be integrated into a translation environment.
However, it requires that the user carefully manage and integrate TB files
alongside the task of translation, and the benefits of this are severally compromised
when it is considered that only one TB can be searched at a time, and seperate
TB files are useful only for the ability to exchange them. MemoQ’s fully incorporated
terminology management console offers more features and the security of fully integrated
TBs into projects.
-Automated term leveraging processes
Another terminological feature that makes MemoQ far
more efficient and productive with regard to terminology management is automated concordancing. This tool has been
described as “playing a video game with cheat mode constantly on” [1] as it leverages multi-term expressions from the concordance
so that the translator does not have to remember what has been translated
before. Users of Trado Studio 2009 only have a regular manual concordance
search tool which does not offer automated concordance searches, meaning the
user has to keep a mental record on whether he suspects that a term or TU has
been previously translated. Trados’ earlier 2007 edition did in fact
have a ‘start concordance search if no
matches found’ feature, and professional translators have decried its
removal in the 2009 edition[2].
Although the absence of a fuzzy term match in MemoQ is a startling
omission, it nonetheless contains extremely powerful terminological features
such as term extraction and automatic concordance that Trados Studio cannot
rival.
-Importing Term bases
Although memoQ works with the standard XML termbase format, adding to or
merging TBs must be done in CSV format. It is common for clients to have
terminology lists or glossaries in Excel format which they may send to
translators to use. Trados users must use SDLs Multiterm Convert tool in
conjunction with the CSV (XLS) file. This process creates 4 files of which the XDT
and XML files must be correctly delineated with field names in another
conversion process in the separate Multliterm Desktop tool. The process is
extremely convoluted, relies on two tools, and is time-consuming compared to memoQ’s
import command available in its term bases tab.
Complex file formats and file
management
-Formatting tags
Translating a
HTML webpage in Trados is made easier by the way it can effectively place
‘wrap-around’ tags into the target segment. With one mouse click the user can
insert the tags around the target words in the correct places, and this an
important feature for Arabic as the change in language direction easily
confuses the user and the placing of tags requires some consideration.
What is more, Trados alerts the user of incomplete tag
pairs byprevent the file being verified and displayng grey ghost tags where the
translator must restore them correctly.
MemoQ
is far less efficient in inserting tag pairs around large stretches of text and
can only insert individual tags with the F9 short cut. Although memoQ provides
an error message for incomplete tags, it does not have a comparable restore
feature like Trados’ ghost tags. Both tools allow toggling of tag information
display, but most crucially memoQ has a tag edit feature allowing the user to edit
faulty tags and most importantly, to
localize hyperlinks.
Being
able to edit tags is a major benefit for
MemoQ users. SDL has taken the opposite appraoch and insisted on their users not
be allowed to access to any kind of source text editing and this is despite the
segment lock feature being available. MemoQ users can edit source text segments using F2,
and this is vital as source text ‘typos’ will affect subsequent TM matches. Trados
users cannot edit source segments but may edit TUs inide the TM.
-Exporting a ppt file
Powerpoint files are
complex file format. Exporting them from Trados results in formatting
changes regarding text alignment, and tabled information becomes completely
illegible.
However, the same export process
from memoQ results in some more minor formatting problems, but it is
nonetheless recoverable.
Interoperability is an essential
aspect of modern CAT tools, and is reflected in universality of some basic file
formats such as TMX that are designed to operate in all tools (Savourel, c2001:
397). In real translation settings, interoperability is vital for transferring TMs/TBs
from one CAT tool to another; creating a translation resource in one particular
tool and subsequently sharing it with colleagues who operate other tools; and
receiving a job made in one tool but completing it in another.
Because memoQ was a rather late
comer in translation tools, interoperability is one its central ideals and even
necessities. Indeed, one
localization expert has called MemoQ a “the Swiss Army knife of translation
environment tools when it comes to compatibility” [3].
MemoQ <> Trados TM
exchange.
Exporting a TM from Trados is very
simple, and can be done with one right click in the translation memories pane.
The exported TM is in the standard TMX format, and can be imported into MemoQ with
the ‘import from TMX/CVS’ or ‘create/ use new’ command.
MemoQ has a ‘Process Trados TMX for
best results in MemoQ’ command in the import TMX function. This incorporates the
TMX in such a way as to best suit the segmentation in files originating in Trados.
What is more, memoQ still performs the import if the sublangauges do not
completely match.
MemoQ <-> Multiterm
exchange
MemoQ has been developed with
Trados file formats in mind, and can export any TB in a Multiterm-compatible
XML file although it cannot import term base data in the same format. The Multiterm
TB has to be exported in text delineated format for import into MemoQ, while memoQ’s
export as XML command creates an XDT definition file that provides field name
definitions alongside the XML file. However, it is extremely difficult to
import into an existing Multiterm termbase because matching the field names is
difficult if not confusing.
Project management & work
flow
Project management is an essential
aspect of managing the delivery and execution of translation jobs efficiently
and on schedule, and as such relates to effective work flow procedures between
translators, the project manager and the client. Although the tools under
evaluation here are freelancer editions, they provide some work flow-related
features that facilitate document and resource management, and interaction with
project managers.
One vital aspect of document
management is ensuring that file and folder locations work effectively and some
CAT tools have features to guarantee this.
MemoQ’s reimport feature can be used to efficiently update and
synchronize project documents, guaranteeing that the translator is working on
the most up-to-date version of a particular document. This automated mechanism
reflects a common workflow procedure for translators; they receive an initial
document to translate but later receive a changed/updated version from the
project manager. Or, translator colleagues exchange files for reviewing and
must ensure synchronicity. Confusion is avoided in otherwise having to add and
remove documents and keep track of which is the latest.
MemoQ also assigns a unique
‘tracking’ number to each document version that enables changes made by the
translators or reviewer visible. What is more, the X-translate feature enables
any previous tracked version of a document to be reinstated with segment
statuses preserved.
In the same way, changes and
comments are automatically updated from exported bilingual RTF documents
reimported following review. Trados Studio 2009 cannot produce bilingual RTFs and
users must revert to SDL’s TagEditor, and this effectively renders the bilingual
review exchange process impossible between Trados 2009 users and non-CAT tool
users who work from a word editor. The
reimport and track changes features are not available in Trados 2009.
-Project Packages
Packages are a major project
management tool intended to facilitate large file and resource exchanges in a
compressed format along with metadata and project information that provide a
ready-made work environment. Although memoQ generally offers outstanding
interoperability for Trados-made files, it cannot import Trados project
packages (it does however import Transit packages). Trados packages
conveniently display progress, word counts and assigned tasks.
MemoQ has its own ‘handoff and
delivery package’ system that utilizes intuitive file extensions (.mqout)
(.mqback). The freelance edition is unable to create handoffs, though it can
receive and return them and this reflects an authentic routine work flow
although being able to compress files and resources (TMs and TBs) in one file
would be highly beneficial for memoQ freelancer users.
Quality Assurance and reviewing
Both memoQ and Trados Studio have
real-time quality assurance checks such as spelling, tag placement and
placeables review. The purpose of QA is to maintain quality by detecting errors
and speed up the translation purpose. Not all automated error warnings will
match human quality evaluation and so it is vital that a) the translator can
customize QA settings and b) be able to quickly resolve them.
A QA check in memoQ displays all
warning messages from either an active document or an entire project in a
separate tab where they can be globally managed and a report exported. The user
can see the error in context with source and target segments present, and
impressively, the user can choose to ignore all warnings of one kind in single
click if they are not actual errors. This is useful in a scenario such as the
one presented in this screenshot where number mismatches are flagged because of
mixed Arabic (known as ‘Hindi’) and western numerals though they are in fact
correct.
Trados also produces a global list
of error messages along with an exportable report, but intractability is
stymied and far less flexible than in memoQ in that errors cannot be
simultaneously seen in situ and the user is not taken to the error
location by clicking error messages. This inevitably adds some blindness to the
task of resolving errors. There is also far more rigidity in solving errors;
the Trados user can only delete messages he decides are not real errors, and this
automatically confirms a segment’s status. Error messages in memoQ on the other
hand are ‘ignored’ rather than deleted, and this allows for the file to be
confirmed as translated while still signifying to later reviewers or project
managers that a potential error had previously been flagged, and the error
message can be re-reviewed if need be.
Trados also lacks a way of grouping
error messages by kind, and offering a batch ignore/delete command, entailing
that the error review process in Trados is considerably more time-consuming
than in memoQ.
A related feature that memoQ has
but which is absent in Trados Studio is its extremely powerful global find and
replace command (ctrl+h). The user can find and view all occurrences of a word
or phrase in both source and target segments and see them listed in a separate
tab, then replace, correct or remove them n any or all documents in any format
in a single project at once. This is also a major quality assurance mechanism
in that it ensures complete consistency as the user is not simply replacing or
editing things blindly since the occurrences are shown within context.
Tradios Studio does not have this feature although it
can be downloaded from Trados app store OpenExchange at no cost, and operates
as a batch processing feature. However, freelancers cannot be expected to pay
large amounts for a CAT tool only then to have to download functionalities as
add-ons.
Trados Studio instead has a basic find and replace
function for the target text that can operate only on one document and the user
cannot be shown where the changes are made so as to ensure that they are
correct in context.
As is true in many other areas, memoQ users enjoy
greater reach with its quality assurance functionalities because of the
time-saving batch processes available in resolving errors as well as their
visibility in context. Trados lacks these and this ultimately mean it is less
able to guarantee quality.
Conclusion
This report has set out to
analytically compare the CAT tools SDL Trados Studio 2009 and Kilgray’s Memoq
5.0 (released in 2011).
Following in-depth comparative
analysis of the major functional areas of CAT tools, namely file analysis and
invoicing, support for complex language scripts and file formats, translation
memory and terminology management, project management and work flows,
interoperability and QA, I must conclude that memoQ overwhelmingly offers
superior features overall, and greater efficiencies and productivity for
translators in a range of professional scenarios. It is of course the
application of CAT tool features to real professional routines that ultimately
justify their usage (Austermühl , 2001: 107).
Although Trados excels in some areas such as
tag placements, it is less amenable to the contemporary need for interoperability
and flexibility demanded by exchanges in commercial translation than its rival
memoQ. The rigidity of Trados’ unidirectional TMs and TBs are a major drawback
for effective resource exchange whilst the lack of HTML text preview for
complex language scripts is startling for a leading modern CAT tool. Ultimately,
Kilgray is a relative newcomer to the industry and memoQ has evidently been
designed with two specifics in mind; - to function compatibly with other CAT
tools and especially the market leader Trados and to offer solutions and
improvements on it while providing a more intuitive work environment and ease
of mgration fortranslators used to other tools. It is my opinion that memoQ has successfully
achieved those aims and more.
The powerful functionalities,
capabilities and professional-orientated features of memoQ certainly justify it
as a major rival to Trados (2009) and I would highly recommend it to be taught
to students enrolled on an MA Translation course as I believe it offers the
best features among CAT tools I am aware of, in addition to being highly
intuitive and easy to learn.
Bibliography
(Harvard)
Austermühl, F., (2001): Electronic Tools for Translators, Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Bowker, L.,
(c2002): Computer-Aided Translation Technology: A Practical
Introduction, Ottawa: University
of Ottawa Press.
Esselink, B., (c2000): A Practical
Guide to Localization, Amsterdam, Philadelphia : John Benjamins
Pub. Co.
Losser, K., (2012): ‘Translation Tribulations: Compatibility
workflows with the memoQ Translator Pro edition (Part 1)’. [ONLINE] Available
at: <http://www.translationtribulations.com/2011/10/compatibility-workflows-with-memoq.html>
[Accessed 01 June 2012].
Savourel, Y., (c2001): XML
Internationalization and Localization, Indianapolis, Ind: Sams.
Automatic
concordance lookup in Trados Studio 2009 FL (SDL Trados support). [ONLINE] Available at: <http://www.proz.com/forum/sdl_trados_support/161098-automatic_concordance_lookup_in_trados_studio_2009_fl.html>
[Accessed 29 May 2012].
Improve
leverage from existing translation memories. Kilgray Translation Technologies. [ONLINE] Available at: <http://kilgray.com/faq/business-problem/22-improve-leverage-existing-translation-memories>
[Accessed 29 May 2012].
Other consulted
materials
Quah, C.K, (2006): Translation
and technology, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Comparing
memoQ™ to SDL Trados Studio™;
Benefits of memoQ™ version 3.5 translator pro over SDL Trados Studio 2009™. Kilgray Translation Technologies. [ONLINE
PDF] Available at: http://kilgray.com/memoq/memoQvsTrados09.pdf
[Accessed 29 May 2012].
[1] Quoted from Roberto
Savelli, a translator and memoQ user. Improve Leveraging from Existing
Translation Memories [online] Available as: http://kilgray.com/faq/business-problem/22-improve-leverage-existing-translation-memories
[Accessed 29 May 2012]
[2] See for example this
user online forum http://www.proz.com/forum/sdl_trados_support/161098-automatic_concordance_lookup_in_trados_studio_2009_fl.html [Accessed 29 May 2012]
[3] Compatibility workflows with the memoQ
Translator Pro Edition part 1, 2011. Translation Tribulations. [online]
Available at <http://www.translationtribulations.com/2011/10/compatibility-workflows-with-memoq.html> [Accessed 29 May 2012].
Great analysis!
ReplyDelete