Velior's Corporate Blog about Translation and Translation Industry

Season’s greetings to our customers, vendors, and blog readers! Thank you for working with, or attention to, Velior in 2008. We wish you happy holidays and success in the new year. We are looking forward to working with you again in 2009.

Some of Velior’s Outcomes in 2008

Positive Outcomes

1. This year has seen all Velior’s major loyal customers return to us again. This performance indicator is key to us, as the returning clients mean that they are satisfied with our services, and we are on the right path.
2. We have closed new deals with a number of major customers.
3. We have increased the skill and improved team coherence, especially thanks to the core project team remaining unchanged for the last 2+ years.
4. We have worked to increase the translation quality, as confirmed by an increased number of successful test translations as compared to the last year.

Negative Outcomes

1. The staff has been developing slower in terms of technology adoption. In fact, everyone is doing a good job in their area by using the existing and documented technology and processes. Yet, some of us are not inclined to make a step further by learning and using any optional technology. Also, some of us are reluctant to change, making it more difficult to deploy any company-wide innovations.
2. The quality of our vendor relations has decreased. Importantly, this doesn’t include any freelance translators, as we used freelancers in 2-3 % of our projects only. The key issue has been the lack of customer focus from our vendors, resulting in missed deadlines, wrong delivery, and unacceptable customer service.
3. The employee input has been lower than I have come to expect. We will need more suggestions, optimisations, and feedback, going forward. I am a strong believer in employee input, as this is a key driver for the company development. We will therefore need to work harder to improve this in 2009.

I am planning to write several posts about why we readily accept most of test translation offers, whether free or not.

Basically, we distinguish between two test translation types:

• For specific companies or projects;
• For translation agencies.

First Test Type: for Specific Companies or Projects

A test completed for any specific company are typically associated with a specific upcoming project. For instance, a mechanical equipment manufacturer may be looking to translate a user manual. They start by asking potential suppliers, including us, to provide test translations together with a quote, and then choose the best value for money.

I like this type of tests. In fact, our translation style may simply fail to appeal to the customer for some reason. Therefore, it makes sense to know this beforehand, i.e. before the actual project is launched, completed, and delivered.

So, why our translation style would not appeal to someone? The reason behind this is that everyone has their own language preferences, which build under the influence of factors specific to this person such as education or environment.

Example: some Russian words allow two spelling versions, with “ё” or “e” letter. Some people use the “ё” version, while others use “e”.

Additionally, in our scenario, these preferences may also combine with basic writing rules that the customer’s company adheres to.

Example: In Russian, Microsoft uses “веб-узел” for “website”, while “веб-сайт” is much more common.

Therefore, by translating and reviewing just a fraction of an upcoming project, both parties easily check each other for compatibility, while reducing costs.

Why reducing costs is important? Imagine that we completed and delivered a large, 30,000-word project. The customer goes through it to find that they don’t like the style due to their preferences, while the translation is itself correct. This creates an impasse. We provided a standard-quality product. But the customer rejects it due to their internal language preferences. This situation will hardly result in a solution that both will believe to be fair. The customer will likely ask for rework, as they are entitled to request what they exactly want. Yet, our position is also justified, and we can point out that the customer’s suggestions are preferential and don’t impact quality.

Both parties are better off avoiding this situation rather than combating the consequences. To this end, we are ready to provide a short, typically free-of-charge translation. The customer can use this to check whether our translation style and principles comply with their preferences. Where they dislike the translation, they are free to reject our services, as the test translation and quote are not binding. Meanwhile, we can also check if their expectations match our capacity.

Summary

1. A test is the way to go for a translation buyer and a vendor who need to check their compatibility in advance.
2. Thanks to low costs, a translation test is a cost-effective solution.

In the next part of this post, I will look at the second translation test type: for translation agencies.

In this post, I would like to share our recent experience of cooperating with a major Russian translation company. Any details and names are not disclosed for confidentiality reasons.

We received a cooperation request from this company in summer of 2008. I started by reporting our price (from EUR 0.05 per word), so that they could immediately decide whether this is acceptable and, if not, avoid wasting time on negotiations. The company accepted this price, and I returned a completed vendor questionnaire to them. The vendor manager confirmed the receipt.

In about a month, the manager called back and asked whether we are interested in cooperating with them and when they should expect the completed vendor questionnaire. I resent the questionnaire in reply to their confirmation of receiving this very questionnaire. Then, the manager provided a test translation to check our professional skills.

We completed the test and returned it. Then, the manager promised to send it to their editors for review. Next, they provided an Agreement and asked us to complete it.

In about a week, the manager called back and went like “Your price is too high for us. Actually, we charge the same price to our customers. We suggest that you decrease your price down to EUR 0.02 per word.”

I was very surprised since (a) previously, the manager accepted our price; and (b) even sent an Agreement. Well, I could imagine that this price decrease could have been due to the low test translation quality. In this scenario, the translation company could have disliked our translation and suggested EUR 0.02 per word as a fair price for such quality. But it seems that this was not the case:

• After sending the translation, we received the Agreement soon, without any comments about the test quality or high price.
• The manager never said that the decreased price was associated with the low test translation quality.
• The manager did not provide any comments to the test translation.
• The company decreased the price by 150%. It is hard to believe that our test translation quality was that low. As usual, we used five employees for this project including a translator, editor, proofreader, engineer, and project manager.

Clearly, we had to reject any cooperation and were left with the questions below unanswered:

Why did the requesting translation company first accept our price, but then reject, because they actually charge the same price to their customers? And why did they need to send a test, Agreement, etc, when our prices were initially unacceptable?

Why were the communications so inconsistent? Why did the manager confirm the receipt of the vendor questionnaire and then, after a month, ask us to complete it once again, as if they hadn’t received it previously? Why did they send the Agreement first and then suggest a lower price?

This is the 2nd part of this post. The 1st part: http://velior.ru/blog/en/2008/12/08/how-to-survive-pdf-editing

Despite the above issues, our company was generally interested in this project, and we adapted to the customer’s process. Here are some useful tips I came up with after this PDF editing experience.

1. Even if you use a multi-monitor configuration (it is high time to do so, given the affordable price and benefits), I recommend to display both PDFs, the source and target, on the same monitor. In this case, your want to use a 22” or even 24” wide-screen monitor. Otherwise, it is best to display each file on a separate monitor. I used a larger monitor to display both files on the same screen. Meanwhile, I wanted to avoid horizontal scrolling. Initially, this resulted in too small text, because I had to zoom out significantly. To increase the text size, I tried to optimise the space available in my PDF programme. To this end, I dragged all toolbars, but the menu bar, to another display. This resulted in acceptable text size, while the visual distance between the two windows within the PDF application also decreased, making it easier to switch between the source and target files.

2. I forced myself to copy almost all repetitive corrections into a separate file, as I found two obvious reasons for doing so. Firstly, the project was huge and I was not at all sure that on the 250th page I would remember to repeat the same terminology correction that I previously made on the 15th page. I would love to believe that I would still remember that I changed “moving part” to “slip joint” until I finish… but still preferred to be on the safe side. With this project, I couldn’t use our standard methods to check consistency, so this new method came in handy. Additionally, this was a potentially long-term project, and having all repetitive corrections in a single file can help me maintain consistency if any continuation of this project arrives.

3. Since the task was technically challenging, the features provided by the basic PDF software such as Adobe Reader or Foxit couldn’t satisfy my needs. Therefore, I used a more sophisticated, full-fledged Adobe Acrobat that also provides a free trial version. In the first place, Adobe Acrobat makes it easy to insert notes and corrections, thanks to hotkey combinations and other useful functions. While with other programmes, I sometimes experience problems when searching for, and not finding, the words that definitely exist in the file, with Acrobat this is not the case: editable text is always easily found. Finally, Acrobat provides a very useful comments view for easy editing, search, and export. These search features saved me much time, enabling me to focus mainly on the language issues.

4. Make sure that you use the advanced search feature that enables displaying all search results within the same window for easier navigation. You can start the advanced search in Acrobat by pressing Ctrl+Shift+F. For instance, I noticed that the translator inconsistently used “wheel” and “steering wheel” for the same source word. I wanted to correct this to “steering wheel” globally. To avoid going through the file, I searched for “wheel” by using the advanced search feature and displayed all matches in a single window. This view is very intuitive, with all words displaying as links for quick navigation. You can click any desired word in the list to navigate to the respective place in the file for correction. Then, you can return to the list and continue to the next correction. This feature makes global changes easier and more consistent.

5. Various hotkey combinations available in Acrobat also helped me save much time. I used Ctrl+F to launch the Find feature, and after finding the first match, I closed the Find feature and used F3 to navigate to the next match or Shift+F3 to navigate to the previous match. To switch between the two PDF files, I used Ctrl+Tab. For scrolling the files by page, I used Page Down in one window, then switched to another by pressing Ctrl+Tab, and there pressed Page Down again. To select the highlight tool, I used U (check “Use hotkeys to select tools” in Acrobat Preferences). Finally, I used Ctrl+S to save the edited file regularly.

By adhering to these simple instructions, I worked more efficiently, reducing the inconvenience associated with PDF editing. But that didn’t make me change my mind, and I still believe that PDF is good for proofreading only. Have you ever accepted such tasks? I would be happy to hear your feedback on this one.

This is the 1st part of this post.  The 2nd part: http://velior.ru/blog/en/2008/12/20/how-to-survive-pdf-editing-part-2

Historically, our company has been using PDF files for prepress proofreading only. This means that we complete all editing tasks in a bilingual file and then use PDF to check for any formatting issues only. Editing in PDF doesn’t seem to be the right choice for many reasons, including the need to transfer the corrections from PDF back to the bilingual file for the translation memory purposes. This would mean additional unnecessary costs.

However, recently we worked on a project that involved editing someone else’s translation in PDF. Initially, when we received and looked at the project, it naturally seemed to be a proofreading task. But then we checked the instructions to find that we were expected to also check for omissions, correct meaning, and style. So, it was editing after all.

I strongly believe that editing in monolingual PDF is something to be avoided. Technically, there are no obstacles that could prevent you from doing so. But still there are questions “why”. Firstly, the time spent on editing and, consequently, the price increases by at least 30% as compared to a bilingual file. Next, the quality decreases. Today, everyone is aware of the computer assisted translation (CAT) software, which displays the translation next to the source, segment by segment. This is so convenient that a request to edit a file by comparing the source and target in DIFFERENT WINDOWS makes me feel confused. The truth is that eventually someone will still need to transfer all editor’s corrections from the PDF to the bilingual files, so that they are saved to the translation memory and next time the customer doesn’t have to pay for the same corrections once again. Again, this translates into additional costs, proportionally to the number of corrections. With too many corrections, you will likely need to generate a new PDF from the bilingual file and go through a new round of typesetting and prepress proofreading. Who wants to pay for all this?

Sometimes, existing or potential translation buyers are inclined to think of translation as something secondary to their products or services. This understanding is typically based on a strong belief that the product itself is good enough to generate great sales in any market. Another typical attitude is to underestimate the translation quality and therefore choose the lower cost.

These perceptions are based on approaching the translation in the same way as a company would approach e.g. their newly purchased computer hardware. Such hardware is something material. You can see it working everyday and can easily estimate the direct impact of this hardware on your company’s performance. This provides a clear, visual justification of the budget spent on them. However, applying the same approach to translation doesn’t work quite often. The translation is typically something virtual, stored as a file on your PC or designed for the company’s customers only, not for the company. Frequently, translation doesn’t generate any direct profit, as it simply accompanies the product or service, without any separate price. Or, it merely serves the marketing purpose.

I am not exactly in the right position to judge whether the companies benefit or not from the above perceptions. Though looking at the situation from the stakeholder’s (translator’s) point of view, I do understand why some decision makers underestimate the value of translation for their business. But what do other stakeholders think about the value of translations to their business?

Recently, one of such stakeholders announced their opinion of translations. Microsoft Corp. named Lionbridge, the leading language services provider, a Vendor of the Year 2008. From the point of view discussed above, Microsoft’s position is highly questionable: why translation is so important to them? Lionbridge managed to outdistance not only the larger and more renowned Toshiba, which received a less prestigious Technology award, but also other companies, which are supposed to contribute more to Microsoft’s success than translators. Again, this perception is based upon the visual, material approach. How come Lionbridge “beat” MV Transportation, a major transportation company that helps 2,000 Microsoft’s employees commute to work every day, or Compass Group that provides food management services to Microsoft’s kitchens? The remaining nominees include the lodging company Marriott International, real estate company Grubb & Ellis, event management and registration company CRG Events, and Revonet that helps Microsoft’s partners win competitive engagements.

Interestingly, Microsoft is paying significant internal attention to product translation, underpinned by the understanding that localisation has a direct impact on their market success. To this end, the company even has a special Language Excellence team, which manages terminology within a complex workflow. Despite these internal efforts, Microsoft chooses outsourcing services when it comes to translation. And now, they even give the Vendor of the Year award to the translation vendor. This recognition underscores the fact that the visual, material approach described above does not always apply to translation in the way it applies to company’s investments in other, material assets.

I believe that we as translation professionals must be thankful to Lionbridge. This kind of award recognises the hard and important work that Lionbridge is doing, therefore improving the image of our industry and translator profession. Despite the internal profitability issues, Lionbridge provides Microsoft with stable and high quality. At least, this holds true for the Russian translations.

P. S. I also assume that Microsoft pays at least EUR 50 per translated page for this high quality.

Source:

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/oct08/10-02MSVP2008PR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases