I had an interesting experience this last week: For an editing job of 3000 words, the client asked me to download and install a 600 (!) MB program that was necessary to view and edit the files. Since it was a new client with promises of plenty of work in the pipeline, I actually did as I was told. Two and a half hours later I realized that the install had failed because of some kind of incompatibility with my computer. I messed around with it for another half an hour but couldn't fix the problem. Since the client also wasn't able to help me, I cancelled the job and started the uninstall process, which took a number of system restores and another two and a half hours. . . .

Admittedly, this is a pretty extreme case -- this was not a commercial TEnT (translation environment tool) but one that the end client had developed in-house. But it was an impressive (and frustrating) enough experience to convince me that it would be good to add some comments on situations like this.

It's common practice to require a certain set of tools for any translation task, whether it's the originating application (Word, Excel, InDesign, etc.) or a specific TEnT. Most of the time we are prepared for this by being able to supply service in the tool of choice or a completely compatible format (such as the processing of Trados files in the great variety of other TEnTs that also support bilingual .doc or .ttx formats). And if we don't have the tool or one of its compatible competitors, we just don't accept the job. But what about the increasing number of cases where the client says: "I know that you don't have the tool, but there is a free edition of it that you can download and use for working on my files"?

Years ago, Alchemy Catalyst, a localization tool now owned by Translations.com, was the first tool to come out with this kind of offer. It certainly made a lot of sense. The full-fledged application was a high-priced development tool that needed the necessary support by translators who could not afford and were not interested in buying it. So the translator's tool, the so-called QuickShip edition, was given away for free. While it was based on the same underlying code as the full application, all advanced features were blocked and, most importantly, it was not possible to create projects. You could only translate and edit in files that were sent to you by the owner of the expensive developer edition.

This quickly made the rounds with other localization tools, and a lot of TEnTs followed. SDLX and Star Transit came out with "Editor" versions of their own, which, much like Catalyst, could only work on files that were created by the corporate versions. The difference here was that these free versions really had a dual purpose. They not only allowed owners of the corporate versions to find translators with the "right" tool relatively quickly, but they also introduced the tool to translators who could possibly eventually become customers on their own.

Today this has proven to be almost an industry standard, with Across (check out the new spelling -- it's now officially capitalized), Déjà Vu, Idiom Workbench, MemoQ (with version 2), Similis, and of course SDLX and Star Transit offering these Editor editions. There are also a great number of tools that are owned by translation vendors, such as Lionbridge's Logoport, or translation buyers (like the one I struggled with), not to mention the tools that are free anyway, such as ForeignDesk, Lingotek, OmegaT, Open Language Tools, Pootle, and WordFisher.

Regardless of how easy or difficult each of these tools is to learn, every one is different and requires an hour or two to become familiar with. Another drawback -- and this may be more time-consuming in the long run -- is that it slows the translator down in comparison to the environment that he or she is used to. And then there are the installations and the wear these wage on your computer -- including potential conflicts between some of the tools.

Of course, there are upsides to this from a translator's point of view as well: It's nice not to have to pay for the tools you are working with, it can be fun to be exposed to different kinds of translation technology, and if you are indeed looking for a (new) tool it is extremely helpful to see other tools and their workings.

Still, are those benefits enough to pay for the downsides listed above?

Here are the criteria that I would use in deciding whether to download and install.

The most important consideration has to be the relationship with the client. If it is an existing client who is switching to one of these tools, and if that client has been a solid client in the past, it's a no-brainer for me: Of course I will want to use the new tool. The couple of hours that I will need to get going is a wise investment, and if the client is truly solid he should even pay me for it (see below).

If it's a new client who I have not worked for but who holds promise of a fair amount of work in the new tool, it's a judgment call. In the case of the client I mentioned above, they actually felt so bad about my lost efforts that they have given me other work in the meantime. But, again, it's a judgment call where I would check a) the client's reputation and b) what other users say about the tool.

If it's a client who I have not worked for in the past and there is no specific promise of an ongoing work relationship, it's a no-brainer as well: I wouldn't do it, unless I already have that tool in my arsenal of tools to start with.

But now to the clients. Many of the tool makers are marketing their free editor versions very heavily at the moment as a reason for translation vendors or buyers to purchase the corporate editions. In-house staff members are being trained on these tools on company time (the alternative: don't train them and watch them work more slowly on company time). It should be a matter of course to pay freelance translators as well. Depending on the size and complexity of the application, there needs to be compensation for the installation and training that translators will have to go through. While I can see that it would prove to be difficult to pay the actual time (there is just too much variance in the technical affinity or ability of the individuals), a one- or two-hour payment might prove to be the ice-breaker that would warrant a successful ongoing relationship with a company's network of translators. And while this might not make the corporate editions look quite as attractive anymore, it's simply a cost item that needs to be factored in at the time of purchase.

And here is a note to the tool vendors: There are two features that are important for translators in the Editor editions that only very few tools have. First, there needs to be a feature in the corporate edition that allows the client to have an additional export option into a tool-independent format, such as a Word or even a text file. This would be extremely helpful for smaller projects where it is just unreasonable to spend a lot of time with an otherwise little-used application. That file would be in such a format that it could easily be reimported into the tool -- or, of course, even better (future here we come!) in XLIFF format so that it could be processed in other TEnTs.

The second feature that is all too often disabled is the ability to connect additional terminology databases and translation memory. Many freelance translators have well-defined databases that they can't and don't want to live without. There would be nothing lost in adding this feature to the editor editions -- projects still could not be created -- and everything to be gained.