Stefan Kreckwitz Senior System Engineer across Systems GmbH „Future Web-Based Translation Environments“ Localisation Research Forum 28 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

 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

 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

 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 Challenges There 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 solutions will dominate

Outlook

Outlook – More Web 2.0 Solutions  Web 2.0 applications for further tasks  Alignment  Term extraction  Term translation  Author assistance

Outlook- Software As a Service  Trend away from the purchase of software  Charge costs on basis of the utilization  Full-stack function scope required  Provider cares about  Hardware  Installation  Maintenance  Administration  No 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: Stefan Kreckwitz skreckwitzATacross.net