This helps, but seriously, ctrl B= make it bold, again ctrly B= make it not bold. Is this too hard to implement... Bold is older than tags... 

Obviously not more than you. Enjoy your night too.

halit yilmaz

halit yilmaz said:

Knowing that almost 80% of content localization come in word form

Perhaps for you... but definitely not for the industry in general where XML formats are definitely more and not by a small amount.  Ultimately I think the important point here is that a CAT tool sees everything as simply tags and in general you should be taking the tags from the source and not introducing new types of tags to the document unless the source didn't have them in the first place.

So for this a consistent way of working with all types of tags is far more sensible.  I can see where you're coming from, but I also think it needs a change in mindset to think about how you work.

I often think the whole idea of wysiwyg in the editor and hiding the tags by default is a mistake.  I think translators should focus on the text and work without wysiwyg and also show the tags at all times.  The exception being when reviewing where I think it can be helpful to turn off formatting tags at least to be able to focus on the written text for fluency.

First of all, I like your helps, I must say. Thanks for the contributions. But still, If so many other cat tools do it my way, it is clear that I have a very solid point. I know where usage of tags is better and where it is not. I explained above already. We differ, like you differ with many of the said CAT tools with equally(or more) advanced processes and teams behind... I am ok with tags after all, I was just annoyed by the "know it all" comments in a repeated manner. My point is equally solid, you can prefer other ways, I should not have been in need of googling "bold not working properly" after installation and starting usage with default settings. This alone proves my point several times over. Anyways, I still have termbase problems that have no fixing obviously, it slows the entire thing too much while MemoQ and wordfast are extremely fast in these fields. But I guess it is also necessary to spend 2 seconds for the results to show since it is a CAT tool and maybe I should choose another tool if I don't like the rituals of Trados that I had one or two all the time since 2012... Too large TM not usable anymore is another problem I suffer... But of course this is how it should be. definitely. Choose other tools if you dont like it. Sure. (the annoyance is not towards you, but to the other gent.)

and these ways of thinking removed the luxury of adding highlights quite quickly that we used to enjoy... It is not us translators who made trados a secondary software. It is your people who made the software a secondary one. Just because of habit, I still use the software I paid to be a comprehensive solution to my CAT tool needs. Analysis of a 500 page document takes more than 10 minutes while memoq does it in 50 seconds... Trados stagnates even while working on such big files. It could be otherwise. It could be dominating 70% of the industry. It is not, because someone somewhere within trados thinks it is good to be hypocrites in know-it-all arrogance unfortunately. Maybe instead of trying to answer equally fiercely 16th time, take this as a golden feedback... it might serve your company... 

halit yilmaz

halit yilmaz said:

removed the luxury of adding highlights quite quickly that we used to enjoy.

There are a couple of apps that you might find useful for this:

https://appstore.sdl.com/language/app/wordlight/1026/

https://appstore.sdl.com/language/app/wordbird/890/

halit yilmaz said:

Analysis of a 500 page document takes more than 10 minutes while memoq does it in 50 seconds... Trados stagnates even while working on such big files.

Yes, this can be a problem in Trados Studio.  The 2021 version has been significantly improved in this area, but certainly there are always areas where we can improve.

halit yilmaz said:

Maybe instead of trying to answer equally fiercely 16th time, take this as a golden feedback... it might serve your company... 

I didn't think I was being fierce and I'm the only SDL employee in this thread.

Paul said:

I often think the whole idea of wysiwyg in the editor and hiding the tags by default is a mistake.  I think translators should focus on the text and work without wysiwyg and also show the tags at all times. 

I totally agree! It is sometimes vital not to delete tags so if you hide them you may accidentally delete them. This causes at best tag error messages and at worst failure to save to Target format and gives the next person to handle the file an unnecessary problem.

I work with Full Tag Text visible via the View tab and the following set via File>Options>Editor:

Most of my work is proofreading/reviewing translations and having the formatting visible gets in the way of effectively reading the text. I know what all the tags mean so I don't need formatting visible.

I am much more efficient using the above settings.

Ali 

So, requiring apps instead of just doing it like we used to before, that is progress... I am a fervent purchaser of my softwares and I did not buy Trados 2019 for a reason. I hope your team will eventually understand. I hope to buy 2021 if the termbase failure will stop... I desperately need it and you don't provide it to me... I tried fixing for several times and now I even forgot what the problem was... I think i might try fixing it with your help when I have some time to think about it. Thank you :) 

Paul said:

There are a couple of apps that you might find useful for this:

halit yilmaz said:

So, requiring apps instead of just doing it like we used to before, that is progress..

halit yilmaz

Really?  Like you used to in Trados 2007 and earlier a decade ago.  When you used to work in Word?

no, in trados 2011 it was possible. After an update or something it got sacked I think. I remember using ctrl shift 5 or 9 or something like that for it.

halit yilmaz said:

It is not us translators who made trados a secondary software. It is your people who made the software a secondary one.

Hi halit yilmaz

I can't agree, SDL Trados Studio and MultiTerm are not secondary software. Users can end up making them less well-performing by not maintaining them properly, failing to keep them up-to-date and/or by not using them in the way in which they are designed to be used.

Studio is neither a wordprocessing nor a desktop publishing tool  so it's not really logical to try to use it as one.

As Paul says, the majority of work these days comes in one of several XML-based formats (DOCX is XML-based, actually) and when the text is at that level, for example XML or XLF formats generated by automatic online Content Management System software, you have to use the precise tags that the original format requires or the software may fail to reimport translated content due to not recognising tags. 

Then with the desktop publishing software, if you embolden something with basic tags that the end product will not understand even if it's a human-generated format (for example, InDesign, FrameMaker, QuarkXpress, Interleaf Quicksilver) you can cause reconversion failure for example, or the tags to end up in the final document as text which is also undesirable to the end customer - especially if they give you the sdlxliff files to translate and return without access to the end files. I'm presuming this is the case or you would be able to do your final formatting in Word if they give you Word files.

I'm no expert but I've learned that a tool should be used in the way it is designed to be used, to achieve the best results. As Jerzy Czopik says, if you want a BMW then buy a BMW, not a Merc.

All the best,

Ali (not an SDL employee)

halit yilmaz said:

It is not us translators who made trados a secondary software. It is your people who made the software a secondary one.

Hi halit yilmaz

I can't agree, SDL Trados Studio and MultiTerm are not secondary software. Users can end up making them less well-performing by not maintaining them properly, failing to keep them up-to-date and/or by not using them in the way in which they are designed to be used.

Studio is neither a wordprocessing nor a desktop publishing tool  so it's not really logical to try to use it as one.

As Paul says, the majority of work these days comes in one of several XML-based formats (DOCX is XML-based, actually) and when the text is at that level, for example XML or XLF formats generated by automatic online Content Management System software, you have to use the precise tags that the original format requires or the software may fail to reimport translated content due to not recognising tags. 

Then with the desktop publishing software, if you embolden something with basic tags that the end product will not understand even if it's a human-generated format (for example, InDesign, FrameMaker, QuarkXpress, Interleaf Quicksilver) you can cause reconversion failure for example, or the tags to end up in the final document as text which is also undesirable to the end customer - especially if they give you the sdlxliff files to translate and return without access to the end files. I'm presuming this is the case or you would be able to do your final formatting in Word if they give you Word files.

I'm no expert but I've learned that a tool should be used in the way it is designed to be used, to achieve the best results. As Jerzy Czopik says, if you want a BMW then buy a BMW, not a Merc.

All the best,

Ali (not an SDL employee)