I am preparing a product comparison chart for some CAT tools including CT, and I am having a look at other available charts.
What do you think should be included? And which USP (unique selling point) of CT should be included or at least be considered?
>What do you think should be included?
>And which USP (unique selling point) of CT should be included or at least be considered?
I forgot another one of my absolute favourites:
CafeTran scores hi with regards to ergonomics. Features that you'll be missing in other CAT tools.
Any way to see your comparison table, Torsten?
Sorry, I am quite busy at the moment (despite of answering here in this forum).
In the end it is about hard facts. Neither productivity nor ergonomics can really be measured. But when you tell other translators about specific features a tool has, you will be able to convince them (e.g. direct processing of a Studio package, Auto-Complete with MT and TM integration etc.).
>Neither productivity nor ergonomics can really be measured.
Not in the number of actions (clicks etc.) needed to perform an action?
Indeed I do.
Auto-assembled result with first target term:
Prioritising of alternative target terms via the context menu. Left mouse button = for rest of translation session, right mouse button = only once.
This is a super feature: many alternative target terms are 'equal'. You cannot fine tune the priority. So, on first encounter in a project you prioritise the one that you want to use (for this project/client/subject etc.) and CafeTran will take care of the rest.
Note that I call these entries at the target side 'alternative translations' instead of 'synonyms', since I often add opposite and related words and forms. Because it's so damned easy to quickly repair a long FM just by clicking on one word and opening the context menu and selecting the correct word. Right instead of left, blue instead of grey etc.
But CafeTran's fuzzy match repair already does a great job. It's really very nice to see how powerful it is. It's a kinda magic.