Start a new topic

REQ: Make glossary normal again

The new releases have the target term in bold letters now.

This means that on a GUI they get most of the attention, more than the TM and more than any other resource.

Some time ago I asked to make anything else than the term in the glossary tab (context, notes etc.) smaller or in italics, but to reverse this – giving the target term much more attention that many other things on the GUI – is IMHO not a good solution.

An alternative would be to give the user more freedom to design the glossary, setting font size and bold/italics at his own gusto. I hope this isn't heuristics again.

In other words:

Please don't make the target term more important, but instead make the help info simply less important (by its appearance).

> Please don't make the target term more important, but instead make the help info simply less important (by its appearance).

By making the target term more important, the additional info is less important. Please take a look at paper dictionaries or encyclopedias, for example.

> I hope this isn't heuristics again.

I sense the sarcasm in the above. Please leave heuristics alone. You may not realize it but it is part of artificial intelligence algorithms which are becoming more and more present in technology. Companies invest heavily in it and the fruit is already with us (machine translation, voice recognition, image recognition etc.). I bet your future iPhone will be mostly heuristic in a few years. To find out a bit more about it, you can start from here:

When looking at the screen and screwing up your eyes, you will see that the target terms are rather highlighted now, even more than the translation segments (if they are not bold, with the actual editor even then only the source segment). and more than the TM results.

I would not mind at all if the matchboard had more reasonable customization options (in the matchboard target terms are not bold, though I could argue that this is inconsistent …). Another option would be to have more GUI customization (why are project, memories and glossary font grouped, while I can even differentiate source and target segment?).

BTW: Heuristics is great for many applications but precision things cannot be done by „not guaranteed the optimal solution for a problem“ or with „thumb rules“. Even when some elements (MT, glossary with stemming etc. pp.) are heuristic.

For those like me who depend heavily on glossaries, making the target bold was a nice decision, but I think everybody will be satisfied if more customization is made possible one day.

In any case, since priorities must be set in future CT developments, I believe that there are more important areas to focus on, project management being the first that comes to my mind right now.

1 person likes this

About turn! After working a while with the new bold glossary target terms, I should admit that Tre is right after all, because in this way too much focus is placed on the glossary pane rather than the translation grid (my glossaries are all on the grid's right side and I find myself looking too much in that direction continuously). This, combined with the green background, in my opinion calls for a smoother visual effect: for example, making terms less bold with or without the green background seems the best solution to me, but others may have different tastes.  

Perhaps a couple of weeks with the new glossary setting will suffice to get everybody's opinion?

I also noticed that glossary target terms are displayed in bold only when Vertical display is set in the glossary panes. Was this intentional?

Another unlucky design decision:


While the left column is being alternated in vertical display, the right column appears in one colour, a bit monotone and harder to distinguish (is this new?).

> others may have different tastes

That may be the problem indeed. There could be two solutions

  1. individual customization: this might take some time, but it can have nice results. On the other hand side, users might get lost in a variety of single options (the actual customization via a number of submenus is not really user-friendly, not to forget the need to restart sometimes for taking effect)
  2. some various sophisticated and useful templates (as it is the case for the windows layout) – not to forget that sophistication and usefulness might depend on user feedback and might take some time (trial and error is heuristics™ – no sarcasm this time) 
  3. a combination of 1 and 2, with the possibility to save own templates
  4. in case 1 an option to reset the design on default

After more work today, I found that making glossary target terms bold is particularly useful to make project glossary stand out over the rest, given its importance. At the moment, I'm working with the general glossary not set to display vertically (therefore no bold, no green background) and the project glossary set to display vertically, and personally I am very satisfied with this setup.

> personally I am very satisfied 

See above, nice. I just tested this out, and see that the horiziontal view appears (in contrast to vertical) particularly outdated, with the first line taking much space.


Has this ever been this way? Maybe I am wondering because the glossary contains a first line (it did not alway). Another thing is that this line becomes lower when there is no glossary hit. This is inconsistent anyway.

> the right column appears in one colour, a bit monotone and harder to distinguish

I agree. This color is superfluous now.

> with the first line taking much space

Yes, with the narrow layouts (or screens) it wraps. The wrapping in the header will be prevented in the coming build.  Thanks!  

I really like these colours. Very clear.


What about using only ISO codes for languages, such as en-GB?

Yes, the new colour scheme is better.

>What about using only ISO codes for languages, such as en-GB?

Or using flags to fancy CafeTran Espresso 2019 up for all those who are complaining about its looks (at Proz).

Probably not a good idea, though.
Login to post a comment