| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | Is it possible to make only a basic use of Studio? Thread poster: Sandrine Ananie
|
|---|
Jerzy Czopik 
Germany
Local time: 11:56
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| This is indeed the case | Mar 16, 2010 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote: Jerzy Czopik wrote:
Similar to driving license - you get it and then you start to learn driving. But someone had to show you, what's all about. The problem with this reasoning Jerzy is that more and more translators who have plenty of experience with Trados and other tools complain about the weak usability in Studio. They/we all know how to drive, know how to use one or more CAT tools. If we dislike Studio it is not because we are inexperienced, are not computer savvy enough or are plain dumb: it is just because Studio was not made for our needs, but for the needs of lots of people who are not translators. Unfortunately, it feels like a PM tool with, incidentally, has a grid where eventually translators can do some work.
This (bolded by me) is a valid point. The tool seems to be developed more for the big fishies out there in the first instance. But in the meantime there have been quite a lot of measurments to make it easier and better to use for translators. A lot of work has been done under the hood, so the SP2 is now much better in terms of usability. There are still indeed functions which could still be improved or made easier. Nevertheless, I stand to what I said: compared to T2007 and to Transit XV I like Studio more. IMHO please, again.
| | | | | But we did have SP2... | Mar 16, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote: Tomás wrote: If we dislike Studio it is not because we are inexperienced, are not computer savvy enough or are plain dumb: it is just because Studio was not made for our needs, but for the needs of lots of people who are not translators. Unfortunately, it feels like a PM tool with, incidentally, has a grid where eventually translators can do some work. This (bolded by me) is a valid point. The tool seems to be developed more for the big fishies out there in the first instance. But in the meantime there have been quite a lot of measurments to make it easier and better to use for translators. A lot of work has been done under the hood, so the SP2 is now much better in terms of usability. There are still indeed functions which could still be improved or made easier. Nevertheless, I stand to what I said: compared to T2007 and to Transit XV I like Studio more. IMHO please, again.
But Jerzy, we did have SP2 in the training and we explored lots of possibilities in the tool and lots of options. I am happy with the training. But if they want to convince me that it is a tool for translators, they would first have to hide all the PM bells and whistles and go back to basics... effective, usable basics. I.e. they'd need to take us translators and our critical need of efficiency into account.
I wonder however how they can make a tool for translators without redesigning the whole concept again from scratch, which would of course take 5 years more from now.
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:56
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| Starter Edition? | Mar 16, 2010 |
I do not know how it works, as I did not try.
But again, similar to Word, you still can use just those few options in Studio you need.
As in Word most user do, and simply ignore all those bells&whistles there.
Imagine, when I started back 1990 I did not even know, what it means to adjust a paragraph (to left, right or both margins) or how to do many other things in Word. Few years öater I was able to insert graphics. Without any training - but it took me months if not years to... See more I do not know how it works, as I did not try.
But again, similar to Word, you still can use just those few options in Studio you need.
As in Word most user do, and simply ignore all those bells&whistles there.
Imagine, when I started back 1990 I did not even know, what it means to adjust a paragraph (to left, right or both margins) or how to do many other things in Word. Few years öater I was able to insert graphics. Without any training - but it took me months if not years to learn the software. It took me also quite a time to learn T2007. But I needed just few minutes to use Studio. Without training, again. I have been trained in Studio as a trainer, but still I would say, that I do know more about it by my own learning as by any other training.
But why we are discussing so long off-topic here? The thing is so easy: either you like the product and then the answer to the initial question of this topic is a simple yes, or you dislike it - but then you can't really answer the question here, as then you will most probably not know the product enough. Or put in other words: if the program of your (customers) choice happens to be Studio, you can do even basic things with it. Exactly as you can type some letters and print them out in Word. The question is not, if Studio is the best tool for the topic starter, but simply if it can be used for some basic translating. The question is again not, if Word is feasible to use to print just two or three plain text lines on paper, but if you can do this. And in both cases the answer is IMHO just "yes, you can". ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Chronologically speaking... | Mar 16, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
But stll, compared to T2007 or SDLX or Transit, Studio is better.
Incontestable.
The way of working in MemoQ is - for what I can tell from a short test - not different from Studio at all.
Or rather, chronologically speaking, the way of working in Studio is not very different from MemoQ
Or, honestly speaking, other innovative CAT software of the last 6-7 years.
And if we speak about software - Word is not the best tool for editing, but is widely used.
Just like the "legacy" Trados.
I would say, the rule for Word is 90/10, to paraphrase Grzegorz, where 90% of all users use 10% of all features. Similar with OpenOffice. But somehow no one cares there...
The life of the market leader is difficult.
E.g. every stupidity is more evident, especially when presented as feature.
Cheers
GG
| | |
|
|
|
| Learning curve and background... | Mar 16, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
It took me also quite a time to learn T2007.
Not strange at all ;-P
But I needed just few minutes to use Studio. Without training, again.
You have already a CAT background.
Me too, I'm able to start to use an unknown CAT tool in a (very) efficient way in one, two hours.
IMO Studio was one of the worse experiencies for me because of the plethora of "marginal" options you should not see when you start as a (false) beginner.
But I admit, Transit is the leader here, really counterintuitive.
I have been trained in Studio as a trainer, but still I would say, that I do know more about it by my own learning as by any other training.
As I said.
You have a damn good background
But why we are discussing so long off-topic here?
Yep.
The question is again not, if Word is feasible to use to print just two or three plain text lines on paper, but if you can do this. And in both cases the answer is IMHO just "yes, you can".
So I said
Cheers
GG
| | | | | Usable basics... terminology... | Mar 16, 2010 |
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
But Jerzy, we did have SP2 in the training and we explored lots of possibilities in the tool and lots of options. I am happy with the training. But if they want to convince me that it is a tool for translators, they would first have to hide all the PM bells and whistles and go back to basics... effective, usable basics.
Well.
Just one example (my preferred one).
The terminology.
One of the first things I show in MemoQ (an example chosen because Tomás uses MQ) is the shortcut to invoke the term add form, then I explain the philosophy of MQ term recognition.
After 5-10 TUs, the students have already a simple working termbase they use and reuse.
Then, a batch terminology import.
It takes few seconds in MQ.
When my students see Multiterm Convert, they puke on the screen.
I wonder however how they can make a tool for translators without redesigning the whole concept again from scratch, which would of course take 5 years more from now.
IMO Trados was never designed for translators.
It's a tool for PMs.
They don't need the terminology management in order to evaluate the job cost.
So why the way the terminology is implemented is simply opposite to the translator's needs.
Although MQ concept is really simpler, I prefer MQ here.
It works.
PS.
Studio is designed better than the "legacy" Trados.
Finally, it's workable.
Cheers
GG
| | | | | Terminology and terminology | Mar 16, 2010 |
Grzegorz Gryc wrote:
One of the first things I show in MemoQ (an example chosen because Tomás uses MQ) is the shortcut to invoke the term add form, then I explain the philosophy of MQ term recognition.
After 5-10 TUs, the students have already a simple working termbase they use and reuse.
Then, a batch terminology import.
It takes few seconds in MQ.
When my students see Multiterm Convert, they puke on the screen.
You're mixing two different things: (1) adding a term (on-the-go and to an existing termbase) requires two customizable keys: F11 and F12 in my case, and (2) Multiterm Convert (converting and existing terminology to a Multiterm "format") is a long and annoying process but really not that hard after you do it a few times. Granted, Multiterm Convert is anything but intuitive--it's really a pain in the derriere; however, it's useful as hell, specially if the most advanced features of Multiterm are being used and not just a two-field setting.
I don't know if Studio was made for freelancer or agencies (based on previous conversations with PMs, I'd say freelancers) or if it's user-friendly or not (of course it's not), but the truth is that the most advanced features is what makes me love Studio. I tried MemoQ for a few weeks and to me is like going back to 2002, I would have liked it then, but now its features are not enough for me, I need something more powerful.
To the OP, if you want something simple or intermediate, stick to MemoQ, Wordfast, etc. If you want something more powerful, you have Studio, Déjà vu, Transit, etc. In my humble opinion, Studio wins.
[Edited at 2010-03-16 22:00 GMT]
| | | | | Terminology... | Mar 16, 2010 |
Claudia Alvis wrote:
You're mixing two different things:
Yes, I know
(1) adding a term (on-the-go and to an existing termbase) requires two customizable keys: F11 and F12 in my case,
Yes, I know it but a beginner should first set up a termbase.
A normal intuitive modern tool provides a wizard which permits to create a termbase during the project setup.
With the Studio/Multiterm combo, too much obscure options.
So, a lot of people don't use Multiterm.
and (2) Multiterm Convert (converting and existing terminology to a Multiterm "format") is a long and annoying process but really not that hard after you do it a few times.
I think "few times" is too much for a standard newbie...
They rather surrend.
Granted, Multiterm Convert is anything but intuitive--it's really a pain in the derriere; however, it's useful as hell, specially if the most advanced features of Multiterm are being used and not just a two-field setting.
For a newbie, two fields = two problems, multiple fields = multiple problems.
The MemoQ intelligence wins here.
E.g. a multilingual termbase import setup is 100% automated if you respect the naming conventions for the column names (i.e. put "French" for French, "Polish" for Polish etc.).
In MT Convert you must respect the naming conventions (unlike in MQ, crucial) and make 4 clicks per language.
Every time I open MT Convert I feel the guy who created this interface never used it in a real job, it's com-ple-te-ly absurd.
I don't know if Studio was made for freelancer or agencies (based on previous conversations with PMs, I'd say freelancers)
Wow, it seems SDL missed both goals
or if it's user-friendly or not (of course it's not), but the truth is that the most advanced features is what makes me love Studio.
The problem is not Studio is "objectively" good or bad but how it handles some feautures one needs.
E.g., for me, it lacks terribly the statistical text analysis.
It's crucial for me.
So, I stay with DVX which provides it (and some other features I mentionned several times here, especially the concurrent access to the data).
I feel the DVX concept is getting outdated (the tool was launched in 2003...) but it's still powerful enough for me.
Let's say, Studio is not bad but is not good enough to convince me to switch.
And frankly, I suppose MemoQ will be faster to achieve the goals I expect.
For a far better price (I need an equivalent of Trados Pro...).
I tried MemoQ for a few weeks and to me is like going back to 2002, I would have liked it then, but now its features are not enough for me, I need something more powerful.
Frankly, as a long date DVX user, I was simply unable to start to work with MQ before the 4.0 version.
MQ 4.0 makes the difference.
To the OP, if you want something simple or intermediate, stick to MemoQ, Wordfast, etc. If you want something more powerful, you have Studio, Déjà vu, Transit, etc. In my humble opinion, Studio wins.
As I said several times, it's very personal.
The matrix of advantages/inconvenients may be very complex.
My matrix shows Studio may be only an auxiliary tool for me.
Cheers
GG
| | |
|
|
|
| Definition of "powerful" | Mar 17, 2010 |
Claudia Alvis wrote:
I don't know if Studio was made for freelancer or agencies (based on previous conversations with PMs, I'd say freelancers)...
Wow. So nobody is happy then! Amazing.
Claudia wrote:
I tried MemoQ for a few weeks and to me is like going back to 2002, I would have liked it then, but now its features are not enough for me, I need something more powerful.
I don't quite get this "powerful" here. To me, "powerful" means that the tool will help me multiply my abilities to efficiently produce quality translations. Studio clearly does not fit in this meaning of "powerful".
If we compare the "power" of any human tool, we compare the amount of work they allow you to do in the same period, not the number of buttons, handles, and levers it has. Yes, indeed a power user of any tool is likely to make more work by unit of time than a person who does not have the training.
It would be interesting to create an experiment benchmarking the actual "power" of the different tools. It would require power users of each of the tools, all similarly experienced in the field at hand, all typing at a similar speed, and with similarly powered computer equipment. How about that?
[Edited at 2010-03-17 07:11 GMT]
| | | | | Still disappointed | Mar 17, 2010 |
I respect the different points of views here. I strongly believe the problem lays with me. I bought a Mercedes when what I only needed was a station wagon. I was a great supporter of Trados (until version 2007). I even gave FREE seminars about it in my post-graduation school. I believe I sold lots of licenses for SDL - and I gained nothing for that, of course. Only because I loved the clutter-free environment. I still have the powerpoint slides I used at the time. It showed Trados at one side an... See more I respect the different points of views here. I strongly believe the problem lays with me. I bought a Mercedes when what I only needed was a station wagon. I was a great supporter of Trados (until version 2007). I even gave FREE seminars about it in my post-graduation school. I believe I sold lots of licenses for SDL - and I gained nothing for that, of course. Only because I loved the clutter-free environment. I still have the powerpoint slides I used at the time. It showed Trados at one side and SDL at the other side - SDL as a cluttered environment, in my point of view. I never liked that interface.
But then SDL bought Trados and the inevitable happened. They are investing much more on their interface and much less on the clutter-free, old-faithful Trados interface. Of course they wouldn't have 2 different systems working altogether. Soon it will also happen to Passolo.
I'm still disappointed because for me it is not a matter of choice - I wish it were! My clients are asking for Studio 2009. And then I'll have, sooner or later, to face that huge 287-page migration manual.
But maybe, who knows, in the future I'll discover that I'll love to drive a Mercedes instead of a station wagon. Maybe I'll change my "style". Maybe I'll be more refined and less sportive. Maybe! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:56
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| Consider this to be a... | Mar 17, 2010 |
Mercedes Station Wagon, like this one.
Hopefuly Studio will prove indeed as a Mercedes Station Wagon and will not develop into a RollsRoyce Station Wagon...
| | | | avsie (X)
Local time: 11:56
English to French
+ ...
| Define: clutter | Mar 17, 2010 |
Can you define what you mean by "clutter"? The various boxes in the Studio interface? As far as I remember when Studio was presented during a conference I attended, the 'clutter-free environment' claim from SDL was related to tags, as the system strips all the external and many of the internal tags from the actual translation window. Compared with TagEditor, which I still use every day, I much prefer Studio because I can see clearly the text for translation and the number of internal tags has de... See more Can you define what you mean by "clutter"? The various boxes in the Studio interface? As far as I remember when Studio was presented during a conference I attended, the 'clutter-free environment' claim from SDL was related to tags, as the system strips all the external and many of the internal tags from the actual translation window. Compared with TagEditor, which I still use every day, I much prefer Studio because I can see clearly the text for translation and the number of internal tags has decreased tremendously. For me personally, Studio is indeed a clutter-free environment. The various windows (Term recognition, TM, preview, etc) don't bother me at all, better yet, I find it clearer and much nicer to work within one application window, instead of having Workbench AND TagEditor open...
As for ease of use, I have a background as an enterprise user of SDL products, including their translation management solutions. The concept of creating projects isn't new to me, and I could use Studio almost right of the box without extensive training. Anyone who created a project in TeamWorks, or even Synergy, will recognise the various steps involved in the creation of a project and understand the various file statuses (original, translated, proofread, converted to original format, etc). But I can understand that this might be concepts that are totally foreign to the average freelancer, moreover each of us have our own workflows. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Definition of clutter | Mar 17, 2010 |
Marie-Claude Falardeau wrote:
Can you define what you mean by "clutter"? The various boxes in the Studio interface? As far as I remember when Studio was presented during a conference I attended, the 'clutter-free environment' claim from SDL was related to tags, as the system strips all the external and many of the internal tags from the actual translation window. Compared with TagEditor, which I still use every day, I much prefer Studio because I can see clearly the text for translation and the number of internal tags has decreased tremendously. For me personally, Studio is indeed a clutter-free environment. The various windows (Term recognition, TM, preview, etc) don't bother me at all, better yet, I find it clearer and much nicer to work within one application window, instead of having Workbench AND TagEditor open...
I don't think tags are clutter. They are part of the text, I need to know what they are to better decide where to leave them in my translation, and --at least in my case-- only a fraction of them (basically the bold, Italics, etc.) would be encapsulated (or hidden, if you like) by Studio... or other tools. 80% of all my segments have in-line tags coming from all different tools and sources and quite simply cannot be hidden. I don't want them hidden either.
To me, clutter is to have half a dozen panes, each with plenty of blank space, and half a dozen toolbars which I quite simply don't need, as well as duplicated options in the same screen and parts of the interface I cannot hide even if I want to. I very much prefer to see what I really need and have all the matches, concordance, terminology, and automatic suggestions all together in a compact panel where I can quickly see what resources I have for my segment. If I need more details about these items, I will look for them actively.
When I do project management, I want to see project management options. But when I am translating, can I have my screen back please?
Studio is certainly not a clutter-free environment just because they can hide a bunch of tags...
| | | | Jerzy Czopik
Germany
Local time: 11:56
Member (2003)
Polish to German
+ ...
| Switch unnecessary windows to floating view | Mar 17, 2010 |
Hide unnecessary toolbars, hide superfluous Windows.
Sorry, Tomás, but this reminds me on a child story of a princess sitting on a pea grain...
| | | | | Floating won't do | Mar 17, 2010 |
Jerzy Czopik wrote:
Hide unnecessary toolbars, hide superfluous Windows.
Sorry, Tomás, but this reminds me on a child story of a princess sitting on a pea grain...
Not quite, Jerzy. If I change the main two windows to floating view, I can't see my translation, the TM matches, and the terminology at the same time as I should. And if I keep them visible, they eat away a lot of my working area.
Please don't tell me that the solution is to buy a second monitor!
[Edited at 2010-03-17 16:20 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is it possible to make only a basic use of Studio? | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to SDL Trados
