CafeTran

I've been using CafeTran for a while yet, but I haven't got around to using it for a Studio project.

I'm trying to work out whether trying to use CT for a Studio project is going to save time or whether it's quicker just to use Studio (of which I am not a fan at all).

I've looked at various postings and resources on this subject, but it is still not clear to me how easy it is to work with Studio packages in CafeTran in practice. There are a lot of forum postings about how to get around this or that limitation of processing Studio files in CT, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

If any of the experienced hands could give a quick run-through of the basic process for and, in particular, pitfalls of translating a straightforward Studio Package in CT, I would be very grateful.

Many thanks,

Jeremy

BTW, do you see something like a time code added to the Studio package file name? It occurs in my environment.

 

Hello,

I think Hans can give you much better advice, so this is a workaround just in case.

1. Can you open the sdlxliff file(s) in the project's target-language folder directly with Studio? It contains your translation.

If you cannot, please try the following workaround.

1. Open the finished project in CT once again, create a new TM, and import the project segments into it (see Memory menu), and save.
2. Open the original sdlppx package with Studio, create a project folder, and save.
3. Open the file(s) in the project's target-language folder with CT, perform the task "insert all exact matches" with that new TM and then the task "set translated status for target segments," and save the project.
4. Now, you can see the translation in Studio.

 

Following on from the above, I've just finished my first run-through on my first Studio project in CafeTran and now want to open it in Studio (2014). How do I do this.
The project was supplied as a package.
I tried opening the .sdlproj file in Studio, but that didn't work (got an error message). Do I need to zip it back up into a package??
Note: I can produce a return package from CafeTran, but I really want to see what it looks like (and probably proof-read it) in Studio first. I assumed I could switch between CafeTran and Studio at will. Was that overly optimistic?

Please help!!

Many thanks,
Jeremy

Hi Masato and Hans,

many thanks for your extremely helpful responses, which answer almost all of my questions.
If those are the only limitations, then I'll be very happy to use CafeTran to process Studio projects.

Jeremy

 

>Also, SDL is a big organisation, mainly focussed on big clients. When you have an issue, you'll be contacted and they'll listen to you. And that's it.

I meant: when you're 'only' a freelancer, they'll have the courtesy to contact you. But that's it then.

There's no Igor trying to help you, even in the early evening. Of course this is related to an installed user base, but it's a great support.

>I'm trying to work out whether trying to use CT for a Studio project is going to save time or whether it's quicker just to use Studio (of which I am not a fan at all).

I'm quite convinced that it's never quicker to 'just use Studio'. But that's of course my personal opinion, though based on many Studio projects. In my opinion there are just too many shortcomings in the interface that limit effective translating. The design of the F/R dialogue box, the slow respond to actions like 'assign a status to all segments' etc., just spoil my personal experience with Studio.

Also, SDL is a big organisation, mainly focussed on big clients. When you have an issue, you'll be contacted and they'll listen to you. And that's it.

Studio doesn't have auto-assembling, which can be very handy. It has all kinds of plugins, which are just that: different pieces of software, connected to each other. Just like many parts of the main program (Multiterm for instance, still a weird duck in the biesbos). Lately I received packages from a client with a termbase. Studio 2015 couldn't open them. Support ('I'm available after 15:00 PM this week', which is about the time that I leave office to start running) reported: we don't know what's causing this issue. Duh.

>

>I've looked at various postings and resources on this subject, but it is still not clear to me how easy it is to work with Studio packages in CafeTran in practice. There are a lot of forum postings about how to get around this or that limitation of processing Studio files in CT, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

I have all confidence.

>you want to use Studio's termbase (you've got to convert it somehow into a text or Excel file)

I hardly ever get a termbase, and when I get one, it's empty or only contains the source terms. Bummer.

>you want to leave a comment in Studio (CT's note is not maintained as Studio's comment at the moment)

If enough CafeTran users would like to have this feature, I'm sure that Igor will listen to that.

>you want to add extra formatting (i.e., one that is not shown as tags)

That's a difficult one. On the other hand: how often do you need that?

Other things:

• In Studio you can see the tag content very easily, but personally, I don't want to see it, because it distracts me
  
• In Studio you can use a reg ex tagger just like in memoQ to convert certain content to tags, which CafeTran doesn't have
• Studio's TMs contain a representation of formatting. So if you want to update your TM via F/R these representations can be very annoying in the finding part and making the replacement part impossible. For me this is a big bummer. I get many TMs that need to be revised very heavily.
• Studio has a nice reviewing mode. Reviewed files with all these deletions and additions and modifications cannot be handled in CafeTran. If CafeTran users would like to handle them in CafeTran, they can request it. Perhaps it can be added. For now, I have to use Studio for them.

Hello,

I'm sure Cafetran.training has much to say about this. I hope he'll be here soon.

According to my experience, there are no "pitfalls" you've got to be careful about, but some amount of additional work is required on your part if:

1. you want to use Studio's termbase (you've got to convert it somehow into a text or Excel file)
2. you want to leave a comment in Studio (CT's note is not maintained as Studio's comment at the moment)
3. you want to add extra formatting (i.e., one that is not shown as tags)

It is a trade-off, say, between the points mentioned above and CT's usability, viewability (I don't like the horizontal segment arrangement), access to your resources, and, among others, auto-assembling; so, I can't categorically say that translating Studio projects with CT is more efficient or not.

Cheers,