June 14, 2009 at 12:45funds for joint online translation
Disclamer: This is an incomplete article on collaboration tools. You can help the community by correcting and supplementing it :)
(the article is published to aggregate the opinions and experience of online translation)
In general, the following points are relevant for joint translation:
On these points, IMHO, and it is worth considering the available funds.
In our project, without any doubts, we used google spreadsheet - with sharing the working file between the participants. (googlothulkite for translation appeared simultaneously with the beginning of our project). Based on the experience of this work, an overview of the possibilities is written.
Since we translated subtitles, they were obviously divided into separate lines, and put into a table with columns: timing, source text, translation.
For the translation of other text formats, timing, of course, is not relevant.
In this format, offers are naturally distributed across the rows of the table.
Perhaps such a presentation would not be very convenient for texts with long sentences, especially for the German language, famous for the possibility of composing complex sentences, sometimes stretching over several pages.
Naturally, various table formats are imported into Google tables - csv, ods, xls. The
problem is that importing is possible only in a new, separate file, you have to
transfer the text from it manually, through the clipboard, which contains no more than a hundred lines .
For controversial issues, alternative versions of the translation were written in an additional column, indicating the author and sometimes comments. Alternatives were then discussed on the newsletter.
There, in an additional column, we left brief remarks and explanations for other participants, or explanations for the reasons for choosing one of the options.
Clear business that there are no built-in means of access to dictionaries. Everyone takes advantage of what is more convenient for him.
To create the same glossary, an additional sheet of the table was used.
It included decisions on controversial issues (such as how to translate the word Wave and whether to translate at all).
The online coordination in google speradsheet is made up to par.
Only because of this feature alone it would be worth making a choice in favor of Google tables.
For all participants who simultaneously opened the file in edit mode - there is a built-in chat.
Participants are painted in different colors, and clicking on the name - you can go to that cell of the table on which stands the cursor of the selected participant.
It will be superfluous to say that the cursors of all editors and their movements are visible in real time, they are also painted in different colors, and are signed with a name when you hover over it with a mouse.
For offline coordination, a google mailing group was organized.
In google docs, it is possible to provide access to a file to an entire group, which solves the issue of synchronization of participants. But this possibility seems to be in beta.
Google links are convenient in that you can insert links to a discussion of this fragment in a group in comments on translated fragments.
In our case, for each block, four states were obtained:
In google tables, the state of each line is easily and simply indicated by the background color of the cell.
Controversial points we marked with a yellow background to draw attention to them.
Spelling and grammar phrases are verified in green so that others do not duplicate the work.
To form the final version, one of the participants was selected as an editor and style specialist.
It was proposed to paint the final version in blue, but it did break :)
In fact, two people were involved in reconciling the style - and to synchronize their actions, they had enough built-in chat.
Assessing how complete the process is when using tables is possible only visually.
But in our case, this moment was not particularly important.
The history of changes in google tables with shared access is maintained automatically, creating a new version for each change in a single cell (well, or block). The author of this change is committed to the version list.
Comparison of versions was done very poorly - although the changes are highlighted, only data from the latest version is displayed, and in addition, when switching versions, the file is displayed from the beginning, and to see which version a particular cell has been changed in, you need to scroll through each one.
The version list itself is displayed as a drop-down menu. This makes it difficult to evaluate the contribution of each participant.
Two levels of access are possible: reading and editing, and two methods of authentication: without authentication, or with a Google account. There were some problems using the account with a name other than gmail.com.
Additionally, the document may be “published” for viewing in a shared format in a web page format.
(in our case, the working document was in the public domain all the time.) The published document can be configured on the reflection of the current state, or published as a separate team.
The text appears in an obvious way, in the form of two columns (or two horizontal frames).
Translation is carried out according to sentences into which the text is divided automatically.
When you select a sentence, the corresponding translation line opens in an inline editing form.
It is impossible to select / select a block yourself.
For loading and unloading, the following document formats are supported: rtf, doc, html, odt.
In addition, an arbitrary page by URL, or an article from Wikipedia or knol, can be loaded into the system.
Tables are not loaded into the system. Just like a document from GoogleDocs is not carried.
Adding and editing the text of the original is impossible - before starting the translation, you must fully prepare the source text.
(thus, if during the translation process it is necessary to make a transcript by ear - the toolkit is not an assistant in this)
Of the additional baubles, it is possible to attach the translated block and scroll through the entire text.
You can leave comments for each block of text (but no more than one line).
Several translation options are not provided.
Immediately after loading the text and selecting languages, a machine translation of the entire text is loaded.
A dictionary search is available in an additional panel (which is very poor compared to say multitran.ru - there are no indications of usage categories, slang, or phrases) In
addition to the dictionary, there are tools for organizing glossaries for storing word translations and “translation memory” for storing translations of fragments.
Both that, and another can be shared independently of the working document.
Both that, and another can be downloaded only from external sources and cannot be edited online.
(not tested)
Apparently, a fragment of the text can be in two states - the original (automatic translation) and edited.
Edited is considered translated and the amount of such text is displayed in% in the list of working documents.
No intermediate states are provided, except for the ability to indicate them in the comments.
There is no change history either.
There are three levels: viewing, commenting, editing. Authentication, of course, by google accounts.
There are no hints of using the group address.
So, you have to synchronize the list of participants manually.
To be continued:
(the article is published to aggregate the opinions and experience of online translation)
In general, the following points are relevant for joint translation:
- presentation format: breaking text into separate blocks - foreword / paragraphs
- editing and import / export tools, alternative translations
- access to dictionary, automatic translation
- coordination of joint activities
- process status control:
- designation of the status of each translated block (interlinear translation, literary, controversial moment, final version, etc.)
- completion indicator
- change history
- provision of access
On these points, IMHO, and it is worth considering the available funds.
Google docs
In our project, without any doubts, we used google spreadsheet - with sharing the working file between the participants. (googlothulkite for translation appeared simultaneously with the beginning of our project). Based on the experience of this work, an overview of the possibilities is written.
format
Since we translated subtitles, they were obviously divided into separate lines, and put into a table with columns: timing, source text, translation.
For the translation of other text formats, timing, of course, is not relevant.
In this format, offers are naturally distributed across the rows of the table.
Perhaps such a presentation would not be very convenient for texts with long sentences, especially for the German language, famous for the possibility of composing complex sentences, sometimes stretching over several pages.
facilities
Naturally, various table formats are imported into Google tables - csv, ods, xls. The
problem is that importing is possible only in a new, separate file, you have to
transfer the text from it manually, through the clipboard, which contains no more than a hundred lines .
For controversial issues, alternative versions of the translation were written in an additional column, indicating the author and sometimes comments. Alternatives were then discussed on the newsletter.
There, in an additional column, we left brief remarks and explanations for other participants, or explanations for the reasons for choosing one of the options.
dictionaries
Clear business that there are no built-in means of access to dictionaries. Everyone takes advantage of what is more convenient for him.
To create the same glossary, an additional sheet of the table was used.
It included decisions on controversial issues (such as how to translate the word Wave and whether to translate at all).
coordination
The online coordination in google speradsheet is made up to par.
Only because of this feature alone it would be worth making a choice in favor of Google tables.
For all participants who simultaneously opened the file in edit mode - there is a built-in chat.
Participants are painted in different colors, and clicking on the name - you can go to that cell of the table on which stands the cursor of the selected participant.
It will be superfluous to say that the cursors of all editors and their movements are visible in real time, they are also painted in different colors, and are signed with a name when you hover over it with a mouse.
For offline coordination, a google mailing group was organized.
In google docs, it is possible to provide access to a file to an entire group, which solves the issue of synchronization of participants. But this possibility seems to be in beta.
Google links are convenient in that you can insert links to a discussion of this fragment in a group in comments on translated fragments.
process
In our case, for each block, four states were obtained:
- draft translation (it was proposed to use a machine translation, but because of the peculiarity of the speakers' speech, they turned out to be very terrible)
- controversial issues, difficulties
- literary translation
- final version
In google tables, the state of each line is easily and simply indicated by the background color of the cell.
Controversial points we marked with a yellow background to draw attention to them.
Spelling and grammar phrases are verified in green so that others do not duplicate the work.
To form the final version, one of the participants was selected as an editor and style specialist.
It was proposed to paint the final version in blue, but it did break :)
In fact, two people were involved in reconciling the style - and to synchronize their actions, they had enough built-in chat.
Assessing how complete the process is when using tables is possible only visually.
But in our case, this moment was not particularly important.
The history of changes in google tables with shared access is maintained automatically, creating a new version for each change in a single cell (well, or block). The author of this change is committed to the version list.
Comparison of versions was done very poorly - although the changes are highlighted, only data from the latest version is displayed, and in addition, when switching versions, the file is displayed from the beginning, and to see which version a particular cell has been changed in, you need to scroll through each one.
The version list itself is displayed as a drop-down menu. This makes it difficult to evaluate the contribution of each participant.
access
Two levels of access are possible: reading and editing, and two methods of authentication: without authentication, or with a Google account. There were some problems using the account with a name other than gmail.com.
Additionally, the document may be “published” for viewing in a shared format in a web page format.
(in our case, the working document was in the public domain all the time.) The published document can be configured on the reflection of the current state, or published as a separate team.
Google translation toolkit
format
The text appears in an obvious way, in the form of two columns (or two horizontal frames).
Translation is carried out according to sentences into which the text is divided automatically.
When you select a sentence, the corresponding translation line opens in an inline editing form.
It is impossible to select / select a block yourself.
facilities
For loading and unloading, the following document formats are supported: rtf, doc, html, odt.
In addition, an arbitrary page by URL, or an article from Wikipedia or knol, can be loaded into the system.
Tables are not loaded into the system. Just like a document from GoogleDocs is not carried.
Adding and editing the text of the original is impossible - before starting the translation, you must fully prepare the source text.
(thus, if during the translation process it is necessary to make a transcript by ear - the toolkit is not an assistant in this)
Of the additional baubles, it is possible to attach the translated block and scroll through the entire text.
You can leave comments for each block of text (but no more than one line).
Several translation options are not provided.
dictionaries
Immediately after loading the text and selecting languages, a machine translation of the entire text is loaded.
A dictionary search is available in an additional panel (which is very poor compared to say multitran.ru - there are no indications of usage categories, slang, or phrases) In
addition to the dictionary, there are tools for organizing glossaries for storing word translations and “translation memory” for storing translations of fragments.
Both that, and another can be shared independently of the working document.
Both that, and another can be downloaded only from external sources and cannot be edited online.
coordination
(not tested)
process
Apparently, a fragment of the text can be in two states - the original (automatic translation) and edited.
Edited is considered translated and the amount of such text is displayed in% in the list of working documents.
No intermediate states are provided, except for the ability to indicate them in the comments.
There is no change history either.
access
There are three levels: viewing, commenting, editing. Authentication, of course, by google accounts.
There are no hints of using the group address.
So, you have to synchronize the list of participants manually.
To be continued: