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

Thank you, Hans and Igor

It's clear to me now.

 

Thanks Igor and Hans - that's easy, wish I'd thought of that.

My next question - what does 'finalise' actually do??

 

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,

 

>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.

Hey Hans (and potentially Igor - see below), if you're reading, I could really do with your input on this:

Yes I can open the individual target files directly in Studio as described by Masato above.
I'm reluctant to go down that route, however, as if I spend a day reviewing and correcting everything in SDL and then find that CafeTran doesn't like the modified files, then I'm sunk.

If there a way of opening the project in SDL?????

I tried zipping up the contents of the project folder and renaming the .zip file to .sdlppx, but SDL wouldn't open it ((Igor if you're reading this, this may be something for your attention):
When I try to open it, I see the 'Review package' screen, but note that the package type is shown as a "Return package".
When I then click on "Finish", the 'Importing package' screen is displayed, but I get the following error message:
"Failed to import return package because it contains a project that does not exist in your setup:
(Name = '{0}', ID = '{1}')"
I'm speculating that somewhere along the line, CafeTran has set some flag in the project file to say it's a return package. (I did previously use the create return package function in CafeTran for testing purposes).

Would appreciate any help anyone can provide.
Cheers,
Jeremy

Further to the above, I may have found a solution - the above errors got me thinking, so I simply copied the original project file (from the original package) into my new .sdlppx file. Studio is now able to open the package and I can work on the files as expected.

I confess that hacking the files like this leaves me feeling nervous. (What unintended consequences might await?)

Igor, genuine no-hacking required interoperability with SDL would be a huge selling point for CafeTran.

Hi, amos

I just want to confirm if the issue I've been experiencing is the same as yours.

The project file in the project folder created by CT has a timestamp (?) that is not included in the package file name, and it cannot be opened in Studio.