Many of you will remember that I did a couple of webinars with eCPD last year where I (make that: we) looked at what's missing in translation technology. I wrote about it in a number of publications, including the Tool Box Journal (see editions 231 and 232 for Premium subscribers).

You can view all the questions that we came up with and the answers that the technology developers had in this (rather unwieldy) Excel spreadsheet.

Back then we said that we would do a follow-up webinar a year later. Well, it took a bit more than a year, but it's finally on the schedule for May 21. Be sure to register early -- Lucy from eCPD is kind enough to make this event free (again), and there's only a limited number of slots.

I've already taken one step in preparation for the webinar, and I'd like to do a second for which I need your help.

Let's first talk about what I need from you (it's not required, of course, but I'd really appreciate your help -- and it's of the kind that we all might benefit from).

The main topics we covered in the last set of webinars had to deal with these general topics -- all in relation to translation environment tools and their user friendliness:

• Voice recognition
• Access to external resources
• Termbases
• Translation memories/corpora
• Machine translation
• General user-friendliness improvements

Now let's take it to the next level.

What's the next big thing that all translation environment tools (or maybe just some of them) are lagging behind on? Is it covered by one of the topics above? Might it be that the promise of a "translation environment" where everything that is needed by the translator is brought into one environment becomes more of a reality? Does it have to do with voice recognition? Is it machine translation? Or is it a move away from "old" paradigms of TM and termbase altogether? (István from Kilgray talks about the "leftovers from the database era" in his response below.) Might it have to do with new cooperative work models? Or possibly completely new business models? Or is it something altogether different? Are we maybe already in promised land with everything working like we want it to?

Since I'm pretty sure that the last option is not going to be your answer, can we try to be creative and come up with something that would really expand the existing boundaries?

I've opened a document that I envision being used as a scratch pad for all of us as we think and play with ideas. Let's be respectful of each other, but at the same time let's try to really push the envelope. (If you can't access the document, you can also send me an email or tweet to me at Jeromobot.)

I will try to organize and structure our ideas about a week before the May 21^st webinar so that I can send it to the developers and have them respond (including those who weren't on the radar last year).

Let's now talk about what's already been done. I contacted those developers who had promised changes or specific developments and asked them about the progress of those promises. You'll find their answers further down in this article, and I hope that you benefit as much from them as I did. For one, I think the wording of the responses could be good field of research for a communications class. Some of the vendors are completely open, almost to the point of being vulnerable (and I have to say, I appreciate that very much); others are almost defiant (a little less appreciated). Still, overall I think we should all be thankful that we are dealing with folks who are obviously interested in communicating with the customers.

A couple of notes: I did not contact those developers who didn't promise any upcoming changes (refer to the spreadsheet link above to see who those are), and MultiTrans was not able to respond because as "a larger company, we will need approval for externalized content." (Between the first webinar and now they have been sold to LSP RR Donnelley.) Too bad.

Wordbee also brought up an interesting point: Their statement essentially said that it would be great to develop all kinds of fancy new features, but the reality is that they have to respond to "feature requests from our customers. Unfortunately not the ones you had asked for in the webinar. The new features are often referring to the TMS aspects of our product and to a smaller percentage on the translation tools." I get that.

So, without further ado, here are the responses: 

The Words You Want. Anywhere, Anytime

Let WordFinder open a new world of opportunities -- get access to millions of words and translations from the best dictionaries, on your computer, via a web browser, on your smartphone or tablet. Stuffed with lots of smart features. WordFinder has what you need as a translator in your everyday work -- anywhere, anytime!

Read more at www.wordfinder.com.

Our 2014 prompt: Some features such as auto-complete don't work with voice recognition (while it makes sense that it would not work for single words, there is no reason that it should not work for phrases).

Vendor's 2014 response: We perfectly understand this request and agree on the need to implement this: we should provide keyboard shortcuts to insert specific AutoWrite entries in Déjà Vu.

As mentioned above, this is something technically easy to do and will include this in a DVX3 update this year if not in first release.

Vendor's 2015 update: The AutoWrite results are presented in a standard Windows listbox, so the normal Dragon NaturallySpeaking navigation commands (e.g. "Press Enter") already work. We haven't found a way to make this any easier, since dictating keyboard shortcuts (e.g. "Press Control Shift Z") is actually longer.

Prompt: There also needs to be an easy and well-documented way to user-define queries for external resources.

Response: This is an interesting point. In general, we prefer to develop specific custom integrations with external resources so that we can take advantage of them in features like AutoSearch or fuzzy match repairs, but we do understand the usefulness of a more generic feature to query web-based resources. Without having studied the complexity involved in implementing this, all we can say at this point is that we will look into it and estimate the workload and efforts involved before making a decision on integrating this for future releases.

Update: After evaluating the possibility of defining a "generic" plug-in for web-based sources, it was determined that, since they can't be integrated into AutoSearch or fuzzy match repairs, they were of limited use. The feature is still in our backlog, but not high priority.

Prompt: Difficult to maintain the terminology in the termbase (that's true for essentially all tools)

Response: Indeed. This is planned in our roadmap to provide a DVX3 update with following TB improvements: A true multi-column view of the termbase; import & export data between DVX3 termbases; add options to add/suppress duplicate and consolidate; TBX support; saving import and export structure template.

Update: The multi-column view and import/export field definition templates are almost ready and will be included in a build later this year.

Prompt: Lack of morphological recognition.

Response: We intend to further develop fuzzy terminology. On the other hand, we do not wish to follow the way other CAT-tools currently provide this functionality, since in our opinion it lacks user-friendliness; we are looking for a way of implementing this that does not require users to manually add stemming information. If there are functional suggestions from users then we'll be happy to hear them.

Update: We have looked into different ways of implementing this, but have not found any that do not require manually entering stemming information, which is something most of our users do not want to have to do. We are looking at obtaining pre-defined lists of suffixes/prefixes for a generic stemming mechanism, but this is not high priority at the moment.

Prompt: Implement practical and powerful quality assurance, spell-checking, and maintenance tools for translation memories.

Response: We could indeed offer in the TM module the same type of QA functionality we already offer for the project (inconsistent terminology, figures, spaces, etc.). We will take this point into account in our updates plan.

Update: This is in our backlog, but probably won't be included until the next major release.

Prompt: User profiles that detect what kind of user you are with what kind of usage intent and technical expertise and an according adjustment of the UI.

Response: The current ribbon works well for translators in DVX3, and we intend to add support for different profiles (such as project managers) in future updates. The idea is to have a dropdown list to select the user profile (proofreader / translator / PM) and change the structure of the ribbon accordingly to fit each profile. It is technically not too complex but requires a fair amount of design effort.

Update: This has been postponed to the next major release.

Prompt: More flexibility when splitting and joining segments and not just of bordering segments.

Response: Indeed there are limitations in what we let users join. For example: across paragraphs. This is done intentionally since it would compromise the integrity of the output files as well as the re-import of translation packages.

We do not intend to modify the current behavior.

However, we would like to implement an automatic TM-guided correction of the segmentation; for example, if joining two segments for which we have partial matches in the TM results in an exact match, then the joining would be done automatically.

Update: No work has been done or is currently planned.

Prompt: XLIFF needs to be easier to exchange between different tools and different user groups.

Response: One big problem with XLIFF is that certain tools output files (especially for SDL Trados Studio) which contain invalid XML and are rejected by conforming XML parsers like the one we use. We are looking into ways of working around this without having to write a non-conforming parser from scratch, but it will almost certainly involve some minor loss of data.

Update: We have done major work to improve XLIFF interoperability, both with our XLIFF file filter (for translating external XLIFF files produced by other tools) and our XLIFF External Views (where we generate XLIFF to be processed by other tools).

Prompt: There needs to be a better agreement of how words should be counted. There are essentially two strategies for that: a) use a word count that emulates MS Word or b) use GMX-V as an exchange standard.

Response: We allow users to choose between using our own Déjà Vu count or emulating MS Word (as closely as we can) -- this is, in our opinion, the best option so far, given that many customers still rely on MS Word as a reference.

GMX-V simply proposes following the recommendations outlined in Unicode Technical Report #29, and this is something we are considering doing in future versions of Déjà Vu.

Update: We have made some adjustments to our MS Word "emulation". We are still waiting for signs of widespread adoption GMX-V; the next release of DV will include a brand new word segmentation mechanism based mostly on UTR #29, so this should make things easier.

Prompt: Specialized segmentation rules for certain types of docs, e.g., patents

Response: Yes, this is a good suggestion. We will consider it for a future version/upgrade.

Update: For the next major release, segmentation rules will be overridable at the project level (like filter options currently are), so project templates will be able to include specialized segmentation rules. 

Across Personal Edition --
Free Full Version for Freelance Translators

Across is an integrated CAT tool, which means that you will find everything you need in one place. In Across, you are always working in one and the same environment, regardless of whether you would like to create a new project, translate a document, or align previously translated texts.  

The Across Personal Edition is a single-workstation version of Across that is intended especially for freelance translators. Freelance translators receive a full version of the Across Personal Edition for free.

More information: www.my-across.net.  

Our 2014 prompt: Other suggestions on dealing with TMs included easier ways to add parts of segments to the TM on the fly and better ways of compensating for penalties with differences in matches due to inline codes.

Vendor's 2014 response: We are looking at the issue of fixing fuzzy matches and would like to do something on this but we also want to make sure that the translator is in control of the source of the content used to fix this.

Vendor's 2015 update: We have introduced better tag management, a special tag insertion mode, improved number recognition and automatic assembly of segments, and introduced Matchpatch, technology that fixes TM matches with terminology, numbers, etc. much better.

Prompt: User profiles that detect what kind of user you are with what kind of usage intent and technical expertise and an according adjustment of the UI.

Response: The user profiles is a good idea which we will look at. We currently have two editions of memoPrompt: one for translators and one for project managers.

Update: In memoQ itself, the only distinction is that of translators or project managers. We have introduced a ribbon that is way more role-centric or workflow-centric than before and made it customizable. We have also introduced different project management dashboard interfaces for translators and project managers. On our web interface there is more sophistication, profiles are available also for terminologists, reviewers, etc.

Prompt: More flexibility in the design of translation grids in specific and the user interface in general.

Response: We have introduced some flexibility with the translation grid in recent releases and will continue to look at this.

Update: The translation grid did get a few more new options, but we believe that it is already quite customizable. We made it more customizable through the startup wizard.

Prompt: While some users like using regex-like commands and rule-building, there needs to be an equivalent to that with a graphical UI, especially when it comes to features that are relevant to everyone (if you don't do that, you'll end up with two classes of users).

Response: The comment on not having a graphic interface to control Regex is a valid criticism and we will look at ways we can resolve this.

Update: We have considerably simplified the way we deal with segmentation, and introduced abbreviation detection.

Prompt: There needs to be a better agreement of how words should be counted. There are essentially two strategies for that: a) use a word count that emulates MS Word or b) use GMX-V as an exchange standard.

Response: We take the point about a need for a better way to count words. The GMX-V standard is based on the Unicode annex #29, and this could be the basis of how we count words. That said, this is not simply an issue for tool providers, and we would be happier if the various players came to some agreement and asked the tool providers to implement this.

Update: memoQ counts words pretty much like MS Word does. We have introduced the extraction of embedded objects and also images. Images can be transcribed. As a result, the word count is much more precise.

Prompt: Improvement in user-friendliness and complexity of web-based translation management systems.

Response: We agree that web based translation tools need to be improved and we intend to do this with memoQwebTrans.

Update: We introduced the web-based project management module where project setup is practically two simple pages -- first you add the file, second you add the metadata, select the template and choose the languages. There is no possibility to separately manage translation memories, term bases and all these resources that are leftovers from the database era from this interface. This was intentional: the underlying templates that are set up by the technical experts in the company or our colleagues do this all for the project manager, and the project manager still has full control if they go through memoQ, the desktop application. The web-based translation interface opens now with a single click and we have introduced a brand new editor, one that supports text editing, text selection, etc. much better, and also works with more exotic languages, Dragon Naturally Speaking and Swype. We have included the web-based translation interface in the core product.

The user experience improvements also include alerts for the projects both on the web and now on the desktop interface too. Projects that need attention are automatically highlighted, with alerts such as slow progress, deadline not possible, deadline past, translators not assigned, etc.

Our 2014 prompt: We would like to see your willingness to do proper testing with Dragon NaturallySpeaking, fix shortcomings, and develop workarounds (and document those) where possible. Also, please develop voice macros for those users who use the Professional version of DNS and make those available.

Vendor's 2014 response: This is an area we yet have to explore.

Vendor's 2015 update: We have started a discussion with advanced users of DNS and other alternative technologies (Apple/Google). It seems that some users are already able to achieve good results with their current setup between Memsource and the voice recognition technology they use. So far we have not made any voice recognition-focused customization, but we believe this technology will advance and so our support of it.

Prompt: There also needs to be an easy and well-documented way to user-define queries for external resources.

Response: Agree. We should see if we can have some generic approach to this or add resources one by one.

Update: We need to do more here. 

Our 2014 prompt: Reasons for irregular use of the termbase feature include the reliance on Java and many problems with that (only refers to MultiTerm)

Vendor's 2014 response: Here as you can imagine we are acutely aware of the problems that Java can cause these days. We are looking at alternatives as we speak -- it will not happen overnight and also the situation has stabilized somewhat thanks to a recent CU, but it's key we address this.

Vendor's 2015 update: It's been fixed both in MultiTerm and Studio ever since 2014 SP2 in October last year. Together with free apps such as the Glossary Converter plug-in we now believe we have one of the most, if not the most, powerful and flexible terminology feature in the Studio and MultiTerm tandem -- and we will still work to improve this area in future.

Maintaining terms both from Studio and MultiTerm has become a lot easier and faster. It is still good to learn MultiTerm (and its power) but it's now possible (thanks to apps such as the Glossary Converter) to use MultiTerm in a very lightweight way as well.

We also added the new Quick Add Term facility which allows adding a term pair (plus metadata if working with input models) with one click. Users still have a choice between adding terms very quickly this way, or editing the terms and metadata before committing them to the termbase.

Prompt: Other suggestions in relation to TMs included easier ways to add parts of segments to the TM on the fly and better ways of compensating for penalties with differences in matches due to inline codes.

Response: Very valid points and certainly one of the "next gen" type of enhancements we will see over time. Also I would expect some interesting apps on Open Exchange, for instance a TMX file type that allows you to run a QA check on your TMs from within the Studio Editor as if it was a normal document.

Update: Apps are now available -- for instance, to work with TMX files in the Studio editor to be able to run QA checks, tag checks, terminology verification, etc. We also continue to look at the next-gen enhancements I mention above, including a more native integration directly into the Translation Memories view. 

Prompt: User profiles that detect what kind of user you are with what kind of usage intent and technical expertise and an according adjustment of the UI [user interface]. 

Response: Definitely one of the next steps could be user profiles and "slim" vs. "all you can get" UI skins.

Update: We have added dedicated UX [user experience] engineering to all our language tech development teams, and you will see the first results in the next major Studio 2015 release in terms of the modernized 'flat' less cluttered icons and some other improvements. Longer term we are also actively researching deeper UX improvements in terms of the skins/profiles mentioned above.

Also, the Integration API has made it possible for developers to plug in their functionality directly into the Studio UI. This has led to a multitude of new apps that can change and enhance both the functionality and UI in Studio considerably.

Prompt: Exchange standards

Response: This is a key cornerstone of a TEnP [Translation Environment Platform] and so TMX/XLIFF/TBX is at the heart of what we do. Other areas are a bit more intricate, hence the lack of widely accepted vendor-neutral standards and/or slowness/reluctance to implement them.

Update: No particular update on this one, other than to say that we keep enhancing esp. XLIFF support in Studio as a file type, with interesting other 'app' type updates and customizations that some of our developers and customers (in-house use for very specific XLIFF flavors) are looking at. Thanks to the TEnP design in Studio, more and more customers and developers find out about the rich customization capabilities and use them more and more.

Prompt: We need more ways to work in workgroups without purchasing more expensive licenses.

Response: At least for some market segments, working in workgroups without expensive licenses is now within reach via the cloud as it offers new ways of subscription pricing rather than having to invest in permanent licenses. As mentioned to you separately, we will start the validation process for GroupShare in the Cloud very soon, it's a key priority for us.

Update: GroupShare Cloud has launched, and more cloud innovation is on its way and getting more and more tangible now. So watch this space.  

Prompt: There also needs to be an easy and well-documented way to user-define queries for external data.   

Update: A very rich and free app has now been released for this called Web Lookup. I would say this is one of the best apps I have seen so far.    

Prompt: Why have other tool vendors not followed Déjà Vu's lead of fixing fuzzy match TM segments with termbase/subsegment/machine translation data? This seems to be something that would be relatively easy to implement and, unlike other features -- including in-context exact matches, autocompletion, and subsegmenting -- where vendors have all followed each other, this helpful feature is still only implemented by only one tool.   

Update: The reason why this has only been done by one tool is that other vendors seem to feel that the translator should be in control of how this is done, not the tool. As a next step, in Studio 2015 we plan to introduce more flexibility and power for AutoSuggest which will draw from more resources than in earlier versions (such as MT). We will continue down that path even beyond the 2015 release. By providing fragments that the user can choose themselves to fix fuzzy matches we provide an alternate method that leaves the translator somewhat more in control (we feel).  

Online Translation Reviewing with STAR WebCheck

The ability to approve translations quickly, easily and locally is an important factor in ensuring speed and efficiency. Time is of the essence and not all proofreaders are experienced TMS users. Locations on the other side of the world must also be able to do their own proofreading to ensure timely project delivery. STAR WebCheck is the ideal solution for meeting these requirements.  

For more information, please contact: info@star-group.net

www.star-group.net 

Our 2014 prompt: There also needs to be an easy and well-documented way to user-define queries for external resources.

Vendor's 2014 response: This already is in our development plan. We have quite a few already linked into Wordbee. For example, IATE and UNTERM. We will add web-based searching to it. How this will be linked in and presented I cannot yet tell.

Vendor's 2015 update: We have linked to 18 new online dictionaries/term bases, each time upon specific customer request.

Prompt: Lack of morphological recognition

Response: The lack of morphological recognition is something we will improve in the framework of the MT developments.

Update: This is still in preparation actually. At this moment, we have detailed specifications of what we want to achieve and how, but developments have not started.

Prompt: Why have other tool vendors not followed Déjà Vu's lead of fixing fuzzy match TM segments with termbase/subsegment/machine translation data? This seems to be something that would be relatively easy to implement and, unlike other features -- including in-context exact matches, autocompletion, and subsegmenting -- where vendors have all followed each other, this helpful feature has still been implemented by only one tool.

Response: Machine translation fixing: We have done some preliminary work on the MT correction of fuzzy matches. Enhancing pre-translation quality really fits into our product philosophy (aka process optimization). This is definitely a direction we are going in the short term.

Update: Same answer as for question above.

Prompt: More WYSIWYG formatting capabilities, even if not reflected in source text.

Response: Something we will do.

Update: The answer is still the same, we have not yet started developments.

However, we will very soon launch web-based preview features for a wide range of binary formats. Not exactly what you asked for but a step in the right direction. Translators/reviewers then do not need to download e.g. InDesign or Word to their PC for preview. 

Our 2014 prompt: Why have other tool vendors not followed Déjà Vu's lead of fixing fuzzy match TM segments with termbase/subsegment/machine translation data? This seems to be something that would be relatively easy to implement and, unlike other features -- including in-context exact matches, autocompletion, and subsegmenting -- where vendors have all followed each other, this helpful feature is still only implemented by only one tool.

Vendor's 2014 response: Wordfast Classic has already added autocomplete, subsegment matching from TMs and MTs. Wordfast Pro will follow suit in version 4. We will take this one step further and add automatic fixing of fuzzy match segments using sub-segment TM and MT suggestions.

Vendor's 2015 update: Wordfast Pro 4 is coming this summer. An online version is already visible at Wordfast Anywhere (click "Translate with WFP4o" on a document in the Advanced Document Manager). The full, installable version will be the same application, only running locally at full speed with no need for an internet connection.

Prompt: Other suggestions included easier ways to add parts of segments to the TM on the fly and better ways of compensating for penalties with differences in matches due to inline codes.

Response: This will be developed in WFP in version 4.

Update: See above.

Prompt: User profiles that detect what kind of user you are with what kind of usage intent and technical expertise and an according adjustment of the UI.

Response: Wordfast Pro 4 will have specific user profiles for different project participants and we will have a review mode specific for the editing phase of a project.

Update: See above.

Prompt: More flexibility in the design of translation grids in specific and the user interface in general

Response: Wordfast Pro has always been (and will continue to be) focused on a customizable UI. Users can choose table and text view, they can customize colors and fonts, and undock/minimize panes. WFP4 will add the ability to filter the translation grid based on segment status.

Update: There are new possible layouts for the translation tool front end in Wordfast Anywhere, apart from the original "Wordfast Classic" view: vertical side-by-side view (identical to Wordfast Pro's, and most other tools out there), and a "horizontal" view, where source and target are up/own rather than left/right, so that the text's width is more like what it is in real life.

For Wordfast Pro, see above.

Prompt: Integrated conversions of measurements (applies to some tools more than to others)

Response: This has been discussed as a possible feature down the road in WFP4.

Update: See above.

Prompt: More WYSIWYG formatting capabilities, even if not reflected in source text.

Response: This will be in WFP4.

Update: See above.

Prompt: More flexibility when splitting and joining segments, especially in Trados, and not just of bordering segments.

Response: We have this in WFP3 and it will be further developed and improved in WFP4.

Update: See above.

Prompt: More flexible quality assurance features with more language-specific, pre-defined rules.

Response: We have really focused on enhancing Transcheck in WFP4 to check the following - empty target, modified 100% and ICE matches, copied source, repeated words, untranslated segments, terminology, missing tags, forbidden characters, whitespace, formatting (bold, italic, underline, superscript, subscript, strikethrough), segment length, punctuation (language specific). Number transcheck will be greatly improved to check/ignore for number separator, leading zeros, dashes, and more. Consistency check will be improved to check for inconsistency in source and target, multiple translations for the same source, inconsistent language pair. We will also add User-defined regex check.

Update: See above.

Prompt: While some users like using regex-like commands and rule-building, there needs to be an equivalent to that with a graphical UI, especially when it comes to features that are relevant to everyone (if you don't do that, you'll end up with two classes of users).

Response: We will add a wizard for rules building in the UI for users that cannot right Regex.

Update: See above.

Prompt: There needs to be a (XML-based?) standard for the exchange of keyboard shortcuts -- the majority of participants (and translators in general) are using more than one translation environment tool and it's difficult to adjust typing habits.

Response: Wordfast Pro offers users the ability to change their shortcut key mappings to match those of other tools in the industry. Users can also define their own shortcut keys. In WFP4 these preferences will be exportable but as of right now can only be read in Wordfast tools.

Update: See above. 

Our 2014 prompt: There also needs to be an easy and well-documented way to user-define queries for external resources.

Vendor's 2014 response: An excellent suggestion. We have had this on our distant road map for a long time. We will try and move this forward in our plans.

Vendor's 2015 update: We have licensed and are currently integrating the world's largest and most comprehensive lexical repository, BabelNet, into XTM. As BabelNet comprises all other resources on the net, including IATE, Wiktionary, Wikipedia, etc., we feel that this is the best way of delivering such information with the XTM Translator Workbench. As BabelNet will be integrated directly into XTM, we can provide translators with a consistent user interface and very good performance. BabelNet is being constantly updated with 4 releases per year so translators will have access to the latest data.

Prompt: It's difficult to enter the terminology into the termbase (this difficulty varies between the different tools).

Response: In XTM terms can be added on the fly from the translation editor. We will also be adding automatic terminology extraction in the next version of XTM due in May/June [of 2014].

Update: Automatic terminology extraction was added in June in the XTM 8.5 release and we have received very positive comments from our user base. We will be adding suggestions based on BabelNet in the near future.

Prompt: Advanced translators know that terminology work is important, but many still feel unable to use it adequately. What can you do to respond to that? One participant asked why it would not be possible to have one terminology resource that all the tools can access. I imagine that your knee-jerk reaction will be: No! But is that maybe a way?

Response: Within XTM we have concentrated on making terminology as easy to use and as effective as possible, hence full morphological reduction in term recognition along with the ability to add terms on the fly from the translation editor. We will also be adding automatic term extraction with frequency counts in XTM 8.5 due for release in May/June.

Update: With terminology extraction and BabelNet integration, XTM can offer translators the best of both worlds. XTM 9.0, due in July, will also have optional deep integration with Interverbum's TermWeb, with full access to all TermWeb features from within XTM and the XTM Translator Workbench.

Prompt: Why have other tool vendors not followed Déjà Vu's lead of fixing fuzzy match TM segments with termbase/subsegment/machine translation data? This seems to be something that would be relatively easy to implement and, unlike other features -- including in-context exact matches, autocompletion, and subsegmenting -- where vendors have all followed each other, this helpful feature is still only implemented by only one tool.

Response: This is on the XTM road map for Q3/4 2014.

Update: Currently being worked on.

Prompt: Do you have MT-enabled fixing of fuzzy TM matches?

Response: On the XTM road map along with further advanced linguistic features.

Update: Currently being worked on.

Prompt: Do you have termbase/TM-enabled fixing of machine-translated segments?

Response: On the XTM road map along with further advanced linguistic features.

Update: Currently being worked on.

Prompt: Do you offer immediate learning of MT output?

Response: This is on the XTM road map for Q4 2014.

Update: Currently being worked on with Trinity College Dublin and Dublin City University. 

As a subscriber to the Premium version of this journal you have access to an archive of Premium journals going back to 2007.

You can access the archive right here. This month the user name is toolbox and the password is jochenblush.

New user names and passwords will be announced in future journals.

If you would like to promote this journal by placing a link on your website, I will in turn mention your website in a future edition of the Tool Box Journal. Just paste the code you find here into the HTML code of your webpage, and the little icon that is displayed on that page with a link to my website will be displayed.

If you are subscribed to this journal with more than one email address, it would be great if you could unsubscribe redundant addresses through the links Constant Contact offers below.

Here is a website that mentioned the Tool Box last month:

tomlinsontranslations.com  

Should you be  interested in reprinting one of the articles in this journal for promotional purposes, please contact me for information about pricing.

© 2015 International Writers' Group