• Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 435 subscribers
  • Views 8156 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

SDL Studio – A discussion proposal, if possible

Claudio Nasso

Hi to SDL developers/programmers/PMs and to all,

in these last weeks, after the release of SDL 2017 SR1 and CU6 we have seen several complaints regarding the overall SW performance, and we have read various useful answers/solutions to solve these issues (namely, deactivating LookAhead, Fragment Matches or other options).

Among others, in a recent post, Damián Santilli expressed a thought that I completely share with him:

“[…] I fear that the company is paying so much attention to machine translation and other things that they're doing things the wrong way for the users that love this tool for the everyday tasks that a freelance translator has to undertake. […]”

Now I have a proposal, if at SDL deem it practicable and not just a “dream”.

Actually, we have several editions of the commercial SW, with different activated modules/options and different selling price grids:

  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Starter
  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance
  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance Plus
  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Professional

Taking into consideration that not all SDL Studio freelance translators do not (o do not want) access to the various “cloud” or “MT” features directly from SDL Studio, what about creating two more editions, e.g.:

  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance/Freelance Plus without the activation of modules/features to access the “cloud” or “MT” engines/features
  • SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance/Freelance Plus with the activation of modules/features to access the “cloud” or “MT” engines/features

In fact, these proposed editions will be something similar to the SDL Studio Professional and SDL Studio Freelance/Freelance Plus where, in the latter one, if I am not in error, the difference is tied to the unavailability of some modules/features (e.g. just 5 languages, creation on Project Packages, etc.).

Obviously, these two new proposed editions should have a proper selling price grid.

Should this proposal, if and when deemed feasible, solve performance issues pointed out by a number of SDL Studio users not using “cloud” or “MT” features?

Just to give an example, when we decide to buy a car (or any other product) we hold in due consideration its performances/options/functions, and after having analysed them we opt for a top range Volvo/Lexus/Mercedes/BMW/etc. model or a medium/low range one. Ideally, we do not buy a top range product with extraordinary options/features/accessories we will never want or use, so we will tend towards a model which meets our requirements avoiding “not requested” features/functions/options.

Is this anything that SDL could take into consideration?

Thank you.

Claudio
Rate translation
×
Suggest better translation
×
Moderator UI
×
  • Get AI Suggestion
Parents
  • Hi Claudio,

    What do the MT and Cloud features have to do with any of the problems you mention? What makes you think having an additional version, for what are optional features anyway, would benefit users? If we did this the install would be exactly the same and the features would be controlled by licensing.

    I don't see the value in this at all.

    Interestingly the features that have caused the problems to date are not only not related to Cloud or MT, they are specifically features for Translators. The initial problem is we set them as default and this was a mistake, they should have been deactivated by default so users could activate them if they needed/wanted them. I think the reason they were default was to make sure all users could benefit from them, so the intention was good. In hindsight the implementation needs more work.

    Regards

    Paul

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Paul

    Thank you for your reply, Paul.

    as usual, complete and exhaustive. Your explanation about licensing and default settings activation has explained my doubts.

    Regards,

    Claudio
  • in reply to Willem Dubelaar

    Thanks for posting your thoughts  

    On these points:

    Unknown said:

    So, to summarise, I think I can do without:

    • WorldServer Components

    • Legacy Compatibility Module

    • Server-based translation memory

    • SDL BeGlobal enterprise

    • Google Cloud Translation API

    • AnyTM: any server-based translation memory

    • Log-on facility

    When I look at these I can't help wondering how omitting them would actually make the product "cleaner"?  They are all pretty much unseen and none of them apart from the login name clutter up the user interface.  So I really don't understand how this would be worth creating another edition of Studio.

    And the login name... well this is part of the work we are doing in preparation for further enhancements that will make it possible for users to a lot more things in the future with cloud solutions, the appstore etc.

    Unknown said:
    Another minor beauty point: the icon on the task bar is empty. It does not display the Studio logo, like before.

    Don't you see this?

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Paul

    Unknown said:
    And the login name... well this is part of the work we are doing in preparation for further enhancements that will make it possible for users to a lot more things in the future with cloud solutions, the appstore etc.

    How exactly is this going to work with LSPs where the account used to buy/manage dozens of licenses is 'owned' by some manager and the actual workers (i.e. engineers actually using Studio) have no access - and never ever get access - to the account login?
  • in reply to Evzen Polenka

    Unknown said:
    How exactly is this going to work with LSPs where the account used to buy/manage dozens of licenses is 'owned' by some manager and the actual workers (i.e. engineers actually using Studio) have no access - and never ever get access - to the account login?

    It's never going to be a single solution for everyone Evzen.  But that doesn't mean we should not try to support the vast majority of users who do have their own account.  You do raise a good point though and even now it's an area some companies struggle with just being able to roll out apps from the appstore.

    One solution we have been looking at is to make private appstores.  So a company with admins who control the installation of the products would have their own internal store where their translators/engineers could take the approved apps without having to own their own licensed copy of Studio.

    So still things we are thinking about, and you do raise a valid point.  If you have a better idea of how to control this we're all ears as it is a conundrum and what works for one company doesn't work for another.

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Paul
    Well, the solution is simple - do NOT limit access to downloads and let ANYONE download whatever they want.
    I see absolutely no point to limit downloads to logged-on people only.
  • in reply to Paul

    Unknown said:
    One solution we have been looking at is to make private appstores.  So a company with admins who control the installation of the products would have their own internal store where their translators/engineers could take the approved apps without having to own their own licensed copy of Studio.

    Bad idea. Admins have absolutely NO knowledge of CAT tools, therefore they are completely WRONG people to do this.
  • in reply to Evzen Polenka
    That's ridiculous Evzen... we have enough problems with hacked versions of Studio out there without giving these users who don't pay for the software the same benefits as those who do. I know there will always be places you can find things for nothing but we are a commercial organisation and we should not be making it easy for them.

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Evzen Polenka

    Unknown said:
    Bad idea. Admins have absolutely NO knowledge of CAT tools, therefore they are completely WRONG people to do this.

    Well, we don't choose who the admins are!

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Paul
    Well, but your current "solution" does not work at all anyway. All these apps are fairly easy to get for free anyway, so those who want them, get them regardless of this limited access. One just needs to know where to look or ask...

    What's actually ridiculous is this desperate limiting everything, which results only in trouble for the poor paying customers... like the LSPs, paying horrible money for licenses (I mentioned several times that the prices are awfully high... I really wonder if the person resposible for the prices would actually pay 2k+ FROM OWN POCKET for a Studio license!)
    History has proven many times already that these ridiculous limits are absolutely pointless... all these copy protections (DVDs, BDs, etc.), iOS/Android user limitations, etc... all just wasted time and money.

    So my suggestion is - stop wasting resources and money by this hopeless fight (people not willing to pay for software will NEVER pay for it anyway, and will ALWAYS find their way) and better focus on making the software actually useful... and also more affordable.
  • in reply to Evzen Polenka

    Unknown said:
    So my suggestion is - stop wasting resources and money by this hopeless fight (people not willing to pay for software will NEVER pay for it anyway, and will ALWAYS find their way) and better focus on making the software actually useful... and also more affordable.

    Thanks Evzen, we'll definitely take your wisdom on board.

    Paul Filkin | RWS Group

    ________________________
    Design your own training!
    You've done the courses and still need to go a little further, or still not clear? 
    Tell us what you need in our Community Solutions Hub

  • in reply to Paul

    Unknown said:
    Well, we don't choose who the admins are!

    Neither do we engineers. That's why we need solution which is actually useful IN REAL LIFE.
    And as I said, the solution is easy - stop pointlessly overcomplicating things and follow the KISS principle.
Reply Children
No Data