I have been using Studio since its first release in 2009, but 2 years ago, after a couple of clients started sending me QA reports done with Apsic Xbench after my delivery, I realized how much Studio's QA (F8) was missing. So I had to buy Apsic Xbench myself, which costs 99 EUR per year, but I don't like that I have to rely on complementary plugins, softwares, and app for features that could be easily* embedded in Studio. I'd rather rely on Studio's features because I know I am gonna get support for those in case of issues or Studio updates/upgrades.
I don't like I have to pay 99 EUR per year to have a decent QA after buying the most expensive CAT on the market, and I also do not like that nor Studio nor Xbench are not 'complete' in their QA.
For example, some double spacing are caught in Xbench, but not in Studio, though Studio has the double spacing check as part of its QA as well. On the contrary, Studio catches an 'Extra space at the end of the segment' whereas Xbench does not.
I haven't noticed many advances in Studio's QA since its release. Why?
Things I'd like to see in Studio's QA:
- Better 'double spacing' catching
- Capitalization error overridden if the previous segment ends with : (colon) [option in setting]
- Check for inline tags, such as Click the <b>Continue</b> button to proceed
- Check for ALL CAPS in target such as The DNA and RNA samples...
- Accept spelled out numbers instead of numbers, i.e. don't flag The 1st thing to do is... - La primera cosa para hacer es... [option in setting]
- Better space fixing around tags, for example if the target contains [word][space][TAG][space][word] it gets flagged as double spacing, but when I use the Change feature in the prompt, it eliminates the tag because the end result I get is [word][space][word]
---
*many plugins are free, so if a third party developer did it on his own and give it away for free, it mustn't be that hard or time consuming for SDL to do it themselves