Due to essential maintenance, access to Trados cloud will be unavailable on Saturday 30 August from 00:00 to 12:00 UTC.
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Replies 10 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 435 subscribers
  • Views 4823 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Long-standing Ideas

Michael Friedli

Hello all

I was wondering if the ideas.sdltrados.com is still active, there are a couple of long-standing ideas which have received massive support but don't seem to be going anywhere:

1. Merging across a paragraph break (or carriage return for those who are still in typewriter mode and contribute to the problem): there are 6 different versions of this, one submitted by Paul Filkin no less:

"Ability to Merge Paragraph Segments" as well as "Joining Segments Separated by Paragraph Break" by Fiona Paterson "Allow HR in Expand Segment" by Gary Daine "Allow Merging Segments over Paragraph Breaks" by Horst-Helge Liefers "Segment merging" by Claudine Lavallée"...

2. My own "Source to target drag and drop" which I reposted a few days ago, since it was claimed to have been implemented by SDL but clearly has not.
Rate translation
×
Suggest better translation
×
Moderator UI
×
  • Get AI Suggestion
  • 0

    My one big ask would be the ability to search and filter for tag content, within Studio itself...
  • 0
    Hi Michael,
    I think your request of the possibility to Merge across a paragraph break and the possibility to work in a vertical way with the source on top and target on the bottom instead of side-by-side have been two long lasting requests that version after version customers are disappointed that still are not available in SDL Trados Studio. The possibility to work vertically instead of side-by-side would facilitate a lot the process of revision and when working on highly fuzzy texts as your eyes naturally would see the source and target on top of the other at the same time instead of having to move your eyes from side to side. If the source is on top and the target right under you can see much faster inconsistencies when revising and exactly what needs to change in fuzzy segments. So much so that many other CAT tools already have this implemented as well as your suggestion of Merge across a paragraph breaks. It would seem like this alternative viewing format would be easy to implement, but unfortunately we still don't have it! :(

    Maybe we can hope that these are implemented in a Service Pack? :P
  • 0 in reply to Jonathan Fray

    Hi Michael, hi Jonathan,

    I prefer the side-by-side layout, actually...

    Neither of the 'precursors' to Studio was top-and-bottom, neither TagEditor nor SDLX, so users who like me grew from those two might also prefer the side-by-side GUI. I like to see each phrase within context, to retain the Source and Target texts' individual perspectives. That may be because I'm principally a reviewer these days.

    I wonder what proportion of users prefer which.

    Maybe a plug-in that switched the view would be a way forward, if it is possible to successfully program this alongside the myriad of other features that Studio already offers.

    All the best,
    Ali
  • 0 in reply to Alison Field
    Hi Ali, Jonathan,
    I have used both layouts and don't have strong feelings either way - I appreciate Jonathan's point though and agree that vertical is better for comparing source and target word by word.
    I have noticed that memoQ have added the vertical option at some point recently.
    I used to work with a Translation Company's proprietary tool (no names, no pack-drill ;-)) which was (and probably still is) seriously awful – one of the few good features it had was the ability to choose between these two layouts!
    As for drag-and-drop, it would be nice to have full drag-and-drop copy functionality in the Studio Editor, e.g. not only source to target, but also source or target to the Filter box, Concordance window to target: the current arrangement is far too fiddly.
  • 0 in reply to Alison Field
    Hi Ali!

    Thanks for the reply! Actually TagEditor was top and bottom. So customers who have worked with SDL Trados 2007 and previous version were used to this format. The source segment was on top and you would translate right below it. I have also used Trados since the 2007 version that was like that and though it may seem like just a preference thing I do believe it makes a difference! :) I also like the side-by-side view when translating mostly new content, but when working on hightly repetative texts, checking if the translation really reflects the source, or depending on the type of translation like with a lot of numbers, names, dates, etc. I really can't see how side-by-side is better than top and bottom as your eyes can naturally see both when translating/reading. A side-by-side view you have to either look at the source side or at the target, especially when working on big screens.

    So I know there might be different opinions I have talked to several who have asked me why they can't work in the horizontal format any more... So yes, the option to toggle the option on/off would be fantastic as I think there are advantages in both! :)

    I don't want to diminish all the other myriads of functionaliteis that Studio does offer, obviously, but I am surprised I must say as why SDL doesn't implement this knowing that it has been asked by several for years now!

    See the following idea that was posted 2314 days ago when Studio 2009 came out and already has 1540 votes: http://ideas.sdl.com/ideas/detail.asp?i=2048&q=vertical. You can access it with your SDL login info. There are also similar requests to this on there.

    In my opinion working on adding functionalities like this would bring far more positive results than changing the UI every time! ;)

    As for the drag-and-drop functionality, Michael, you have a point, but on the other hand a Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V might be as fast as the drag-and-drop, no?
  • 0 in reply to Jonathan Fray
    Hi Jonathan,

    Of course, you're right. I can be SUCH an idiot. Even though my experience goes back to when TagEditor was the latest thing!

    I still use TagEditor to find tag errors in certain circumstances, with customised xml-based file error scenarios that I haven't been able to solve, because it is possible to save as target to xml then open it in TagEditor and, with the right settings files associated, run a verification that will find errors that Studio can't see. However, I don't translate with it any more so I see the entries listed side-by-side. I had completely forgotten that when translating, the entries are opened with source and target one above the other.

    I can see at the address you gave me that opinions are certainly divided.

    For me, TBH, whatever the programmers have been able to put together, so long as it is an improvement on the 'old model', doesn't slow my work down and is sufficiently error-free, new UI or not, I'm a happy bunny...

    All the best,
    Ali
  • 0 in reply to Jonathan Fray
    Hi Jonathan, I'm forced to use 'Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V' (although I dragged this from your post with the mouse!) at the moment, but still have to use the mouse to select the text first, keystrokes, then place the cursor and activate the destination pane, more keystrokes - much faster in memoQ doing everything in one with the mouse. Much as I was a fan of WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, I think we have moved on since then ;-) ...
  • 0 in reply to Jonathan Fray

    Unknown said:
    I don't want to diminish all the other myriads of functionaliteis that Studio does offer, obviously, but I am surprised I must say as why SDL doesn't implement this knowing that it has been asked by several for years now!

    Hi guys,

    I'm always surprised when I read things like this because if it was easy you can be absolutely sure we would have done it!  Just because it's in another tool does not mean it's similarly simple to do here.  It's all about the underlying technology and the choices that were made when Studio 2009 was implemented did not make it simple to deliver changes like this to the Editor.  So the choices that the development team have had to make over the years have been do we spend time on these difficult things given the situation with the technology or other features which are needed.  To date these things didn't make it and on the whole I think the requirement for them is not as strong as it was when Studio 2009 was first released and the initial shock of the big change from 2007 to 2009 became apparent.

    Having said this we do still want to do them, but it makes no sense to spend huge effort working around the technology choice when a better idea would be to change the technology.  So in summary I guess I'm hoping we can all have even more patience... it'll get there!

    Regards

    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

  • 0 in reply to Paul

    Unknown said:

    I'm always surprised when I read things like this because if it was easy you can be absolutely sure we would have done it!  Just because it's in another tool does not mean it's similarly simple to do here.  

    Paul has a point. I have little experience of other CAT tools because I chose SDL Trados years ago and I love what it does but Studio must be the most complex and the highest performer by far, even as a standalone. Add to that the brilliant MultiTerm and the incredible range of apps and plug-ins on the OpenExchange and there's nothing in Studio's league. There is SO much you CAN do! 

    My point? Studio has been successively programmed to incorporate a growing spectrum of functionality. To introduce something as hugely different as a tool that allows you to display the source and target in two different 'virtual' ways at once, neither of which is anything like how it 'really' looks at the bilingual file 'layer', must be a tall order. If you look at the sdlxliff in, say Notepad++, you see the layout at roughly the same 'layer' as it was in the old ttx files in TagEditor. Nothing like the nice, tidy side-by-side virtual display 'top layer' that we see nowadays. I know nothing of programming, but I would be ready to accept that to 'program in' another display 'layer' invites complications that maybe we'd rather not have. 

    Just because something was possible in TagEditor, it doesn't follow that it's easy to achieve on top of what's been built onto that 'basic layer' in the years since then.

    We tend to talk about the developers as if they're acting on whims, ignoring our pleas if it suits them, but I don't believe that for a second. They can only build on what the existing programming will allow unless it's financially viable to reprogram dramatically, for example when they need to make the product appear more 'cutting edge' through a new look to the UI. We griped about this greatly but there's no escaping that the product has to be saleable, it has to look as good as it is, and it has to continue to improve to remain competitive and at the top of its league.

    I'll probably be lambasted for my lack of technical knowledge on programming but that's what I think, anyway...

    It's a great product, and I for one am proud to be a very small part of the huge team who make it what it is...

    Ali :)
  • 0 in reply to Alison Field
    Hi 2U all

    Dear Paul, I fully understand what you are saying.
    Nonetheless, I would sill like the chance to repeat another idea here, which is bothering me since the very beginning of Studio. It is the way the changes are marked in the Translation Results window. What we have in Studio is like tracked changes in Word and becomes illegible and thus nearly unusable as soon as more then 3-5 changes are there. In the old Workbench just 3 background colours were used and made the decision, if one can use the segment or not, so easy and feasible and really fast, that I could use 30% as minimum match value, getting really amazing results from time to time. With the tracked changes however, matches less than 80% or so need to be examined nearly word by word, because what you can see in translation results is simply one huge series of tracked changes, making it impossible to see what really changed. This is information overflow at this step.
    For my this is the most important change I would opt to be implemented better yesterday than today. Even the top-bottom view, which I also would welcome, does not bother me that much, as I could get used to the side-by-side layout and only rarely miss the top-down view.
    As for the "Merging over paragraph boundaries" option - well, it would be nice to have, but source text editing is a very good workaround for the moment.

    Kind regards, Jerzy

    _________________________________________________________

    When asking for help here, please be as accurate as possible. Please always remember to give the exact version of product used and all possible error messages received. The better you describe your problem, the better help you will get.

    Want to learn more about Trados Studio? Visit the Community Hub. Have a good idea to make Trados Studio better? Publish it here.