From a translator's view, I personally agree with Simona and Theodor, the word count should reflect the real effort in the progress bar instead of segments, moreover the unconfirmed tags only segments will be placed automatically into the target which is the most convenient feature used by many translators.

It seems the dev team solved a technical bugs, unfortunately only technically, indeed quite misleading in practice.

From a translator's view, I personally agree with Simona and Theodor, the word count should reflect the real effort in the progress bar instead of segments, moreover the unconfirmed tags only segments will be placed automatically into the target which is the most convenient feature used by many translators.

It seems the dev team solved a technical bugs, unfortunately only technically, indeed quite misleading in practice.

I wonder why nobody has even considered commenting on whether the "Confirmation Statistics" tab in the very same view as the Files View is suitable?  This provides exactly what you want already.  What we do here actually has nothing to do with me, but the more I think about this one the more I think it should not be changed back to words.  This bar is a very simplistic view of whether the file is complete or not.  Basing this on words alone is incorrect because you cannot reflect progress on this basis.

The accuracy of the percentage in this bar is also irrelevant because it's only a simple indicator of whether the file is complete or not.  But clearly when it's based on segments the percentage is actually accurate.

I suggest you use the idea post referred to earlier if you feel strongly about this.

But I'd really love to hear why the information that is already there, in the same place, doesn't give you what you need?

W K said:

moreover the unconfirmed tags only segments will be placed automatically into the target which is the most convenient feature used by many translators.

This has nothing to do with this.  This is not about what's easy and what's not, it's about being able to spot quickly whether files have been completed or not.  If you were a project manager you'd soon realise not all translators are as diligent as you all are!

Paul said:

The accuracy of the percentage in this bar is also irrelevant because it's only a simple indicator of whether the file is complete or not. 

If the accuracy is irrelevant, then we don't need a bar here. Something like a traffic light display (additional) would have been sufficient.

The accuracy before was sufficient and at least in accordance with the status bar in the editor. What you are doing now is no good!

W K said:

It seems the dev team solved a technical bugs, unfortunately only technically, indeed quite misleading in practice.

No one at RWS seems to care about that.

Theodor Pitsch W K Simona Weiss Bruce Campbell 

Why isn't this helpful?  It seems to give you exactly what you want.

Your specialists also have this display. Are they so stupid that you have to explain the new status bar to them?

There was no reason at all to upset the other users. This is pure willfulness - and that you don't want to row back is stubbornness.

Theodor Pitsch 

Theodor Pitsch said:

This is pure willfulness - and that you don't want to row back is stubbornness.

No it isn't.  First of all this isn't my decision.  But I can see perfectly well why the decision was made.  I feel as though you don't want to listen at all.  If you have hundreds or thousands of files - which you probably won't have, but a project manager working on large projects will have - then the fastest way to see if something is incomplete is by quickly scrolling the files list and sorting by progress.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere.  I am perfectly happy to listen to your complaint, and I have done.  I can see you got used to using something that was working incorrectly and the usecase for it being fixed is a lot stronger than the one you have to undo that change.  The only stubbornness I see is your unwillingness lower your eyes a few inches and read exactly what you need for a single file in the way you see fit.  You have also shown no willingness whatsoever to explain why this is so important for you and why you cannot lower your eyes a bit.  You have just complained with no context, yet you expect us to spend time and money do deliver what you want.  Think about that.

I think it could be possible to add a feature to allow a user to decide for themselves whether words or segments are the basis of this progress.  That's up to the product manager to decide.  Frankly I wouldn't waste time on that (until I had nothing else that needed development time) if it was my decision given it's already there in front of you a few inches lower.  But let's see if the idea generates enough interest to warrant thinking about this at all.

Theodor Pitsch W K Simona Weiss Bruce Campbell 

Hi guys,

I've been reading this thread and wondering why some or all of you seem to have taken exception to how Paul replied to your posts.

I don't find his posts at all unprofessional, wilful, stubborn or any of the other unkind words you have used to describe his participation. From my perspective, none of Paul's replies were written to 'upset other users' but rather to help them learn more about the product and how they can make it work best for them.

 Paul is totally dedicated to the job he does for us all, this is proved by the fact that he diligently works longer hours than he is contracted to do, in order to help us all use this software as knowledgeably as possible. He's always professional and honest in how he does his job. He's always happy to admit if he's made a mistake and even apologises. I see nothing in his comments that justifies such angry comments as I have read in this thread.

I've been using Trados products since several years before Studio was even created, have been an enthusiastic beta tester and voluntary help to other users right through Studio and MultiTerm's progression, and have never encountered the sort of attitudes in Trados/SDL/RWS employees that you guys are accusing Paul and the RWS 'specialists' of. They are always helpful and willing to learn from any problem arising from any clash between the complexity of Studio's current programming and the legacy stuff they have to accommodate from older versions. They do an amazing job despite the challenges they face.

All Paul has done is try answer your questions logically, I don't understand why you guys appear so angry. He only deals in facts, to try to help you and reply to your various emotional outbursts as best he can. He has been more than patient and I feel compelled to ask you to calm down because I can't see what you're all getting so angry about.

A change was made in a particular small area of Studio's functionality, to improve how it works overall. It was not done to annoy anyone; it was not 'stupid'. Most importantly, it doesn't mean you can no longer see how many words you have left to translate.

So, what's the problem?

All the best,

Ali

Alison Field said:

A change was made in a particular small area of Studio's functionality, to improve how it works overall.

Even if it is a small change, it was not necessary and affected the work of many translators.
Paul seriously recommends to consult the Confirmation Status, which supposedly contains "the same data". But only for a selected file not for all individual files at the same time. Even I, to whom Paul still ascribes beginner status after 7 years of working with Trados (isn't that insulting?), occasionally have 20, 30 or more files in a project. So far, I have been able to see at a glance where more work is needed and how much. Now only the "specialists" can see that. I can't be thankful for that and not join in the praise for Paul!

A reminder that under confirmation statistics, found at both project and file level, there is flexibility and user choice when it comes to evaluating work done/to be done in a way that hopefully appeases most