- WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED SKIN
- WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED SOFTWARE
- WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED PROFESSIONAL
WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED PROFESSIONAL
I can’t comment on Wordfast, although I would note that even this first point is inaccurate simply because Wordfast have more than one type of tool and they seem to have specifically compared Wordfast Classic in a place where Wordfast Professional might have been the better choice… if they were really being objective and wanted to provide reliable information for their potential customers to review. So, Kilgray compare memoQ, Wordfast and Trados Studio. you might have not have noticed but Studio would be my preferred tool here! So whilst you would be well advised to take me as seriously as you would take Kilgray in this regard I have tried to be as objective as I could. They used to have a more detailed set of points, but seem to have settled for a smaller number in their new website, so I can take these one at a time without writing a novel… well a short story anyway! It also turned out to be quite interesting because they are comparing memoQ with Wordfast and Studio…. In this case, and because it’s the only comparison I have seen from a TEnT vendor, I chose Kilgray and the description they post on their website.
In the meantime, you have to start somewhere! So to continue with the apples versus oranges theme I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a vendors comparison just to see where the pitfalls are in the accuracy of the information you find.
WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED SKIN
They are always going to be focusing on their own unique selling points, so we get apples versus oranges, and of course this doesn’t really allow a good comparison as there’s always more than one way to skin a cat! Not all vendors do this because they are most likely to be seen as biased and inaccurate, so to some extent I think I’d be wasting my time reviewing them. Unfortunately Jost advised me that people didn’t want to pay for these sort of comparisons so he had to close the initiative down.Īnother place I could look is at the product comparisons on a vendors website. Jost Zetzsche used to host a site like this where he took a simple text and then did the same “bread and butter” operations with each tool which provided quite a good indication for someone new on how easy it would be to get started with each tool. There have been places where attempts have been made to provide a mechanism for evaluating the different tools based on a core set of features and similar workflow for each one.
WORDFAST CLASSIC SOURCE TEXT DISAPPEARED SOFTWARE
So choosing the right software is a tricky thing to do without trying it yourself, and basing your decision around your own needs. Even articles that are written in a well meaning and honest way, such as the one that Emma Goldsmith co-authored with David Turner (comparison between Studio and Déjà Vu) last week, can raise the hackles of some users and if you take a look at the comments you’ll see what I mean! Certainly when you read the comments from users of the tools that came off worse you can see it’s also quite an emotive area… although it’s good to see users so passionate about their translation tools.
So one place to start might be reviews from real users… but can you trust them? They are often written by fans of a particular product who like to rate the comparisons based on their own personal choice, and often the comments they make about other tools are based on not knowing other tools well enough.
If I want to compare TEnTs (Translation Environment Tools) it’s a small and very competitive field and you don’t see the sort of widely published comparisons you might for Office products, or desktop publishing tools for example. When we want to purchase software what’s the first thing we do? I know what I do… I look around on the internet for websites where I can learn more about the tools I’m interested in and only purchase if I can try them myself, and I imagine you’re no different.
0 kommentar(er)
