W dniu 08.12.2015 o 23:11, Daniel Naber pisze: > On 2015-12-07 19:30, Marcin Miłkowski wrote: > >> I think there's a community that we haven't addressed at all: language >> professionals, be it proofreaders or translators (and translation >> agencies). Translators are using suboptimal tools, such as Apsic >> XBench, >> for their proofreading tasks. If we could get interest of technically >> savvy translators, we could get new contributors. This might also mean >> some input from commercial companies. > > I think that's a good point. Don't you have experience translating whole > books? I only have experience translating software user interfaces. Am I > right that both the process and the software used is totally different?
Not anymore. Right now, I use computer-aided translation (CAT) tools for all my translation tasks (for which I cannot find time anyway). But basically, without CATs modern translation feels like using pen and paper instead of a computer. But you're right, tools for UI translations are not based on word processors anymore. > > Are these (software UI and books) the two use cases for translation or > are there more? How does LT need to be changed to support these use > cases? Is it a change in core, in its UI, or does it "just" mean writing > more add-ons to integrate LT? Well, for more technical translations, people use tools such as CheckMate (mentioned on our wiki). But the integration isn't perfect and the tool itself difficult to use if you're not a technical savvy user. In contrast, Apsic XBench is extremely easy to use but not free anymore (at least in its more powerful, Unicode-supporting version). IMHO, we could simply see what open (and then closed) CAT tools are currently most popular, and see how we could interface them. I also know a company that would love to use LT as a terminology checker. I just don't have time to work with them right now. Terminology checker would take an approved translation glossary (these come as CVS files) and convert it to a set of LT rules (either on the fly or compile to XML for further customizations). For all morphologically complex languages, glossaries cannot be used directly for checking whether an approved term has been used or not. So this would fill a very important need. We could offer a web service for conversion, and XML rule file for download. But LT has to have good, intuitive support for additonal rule files (that's why I worked on these issues). Hope this helps a bit. > >> LanguageTool. There will be minority languages with poorer support, and >> that's always the case. > > Dutch, Spanish, and Italian are also among the languages with very few > commits in the last 6 month. Which doesn't mean that the support is necessarily bad... Regards, Marcin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Languagetool-devel mailing list Languagetool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/languagetool-devel
