Publisher V2: Workflow for translations?

[JeffreyWalther]

Hi!
 

I was wondering why there is still no way in Publisher to export the texts in a form that can be read by professional translation tools (e.g. Trados) and then import them back. Usually documents need to be created in multiple languages. You want to do the work for the design etc. only once and only exchange the texts from one language to another.

Will there be something in the future?

[MikeTO]

Affinity doesn't have this feature built in. Neither does InDesign but you can add plug-ins for translation workflow. I imagine that soon after Serif releases its plug-in framework that some vendors will convert their InDesign plug-ins to work with Affinity. Serif has stated that plug-ins and scripting are coming but hasn't provided an ETA.

Cheers

[PaoloT]

On 12/19/2022 at 8:31 PM, MikeTO said:

Affinity doesn't have this feature built in. Neither does InDesign

InDesign exports and imports in the IDML file format, that any translation software can work with. It's an absolutely effortless exchange, with no need for additional software.

Paolo

 

[MikeTO]

16 hours ago, PaoloT said:

InDesign exports and imports in the IDML file format, that any translation software can work with. It's an absolutely effortless exchange, with no need for additional software.

IDML is Adobe's own format created to support InDesign's features so it's not surprising that InDesign can roundtrip to IDML without losing much.

It would be great if Publisher could export to IDML and I hope it comes someday, but it could never be perfect for roundtripping because IDML doesn't support all of Publisher's features. Exporting and re-importing would lead to losing anything using a feature or attribute that InDesign doesn't support. For example, if InDesign doesn't support sidenotes, Publisher's sidenotes would likely have to be converted to footnotes when exported to IDML. If InDesign doesn't support some adjustment layer attribute, that attribute would be lost.

[Old Bruce]

On 12/19/2022 at 3:23 AM, JeffreyWalther said:

I was wondering why there is still no way in Publisher to export the texts in a form that can be read by professional translation tools

Only copy from Publisher and paste into another program that the translation tool works with. Perhaps the Trados tool or Apple's Pages or Text Edit or Microsoft's Word or LibreOffice.

[PaoloT]

7 hours ago, MikeTO said:

It would be great if Publisher could export to IDML and I hope it comes someday, but it could never be perfect for roundtripping because IDML doesn't support all of Publisher's features.

That sounds right, and this would be something to keep in mind when planning a document to be translated. As an alternative, maybe the IDML filter in Publisher – being IDML an XML format – could be customized by expanding the schema.

Or, maybe page description could be changed to something like HTML5/CSS, that would be useful even in case of Publisher leaving the paper-only world, and expanding into web page design. IDML would, in any case, still be a fundamental filter, to connect with the industry-standard file format.

6 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Only copy from Publisher and paste into another program that the translation tool works with.

This would be of no use at all. Links to linked images would be lost, as would be most of the page layout data.

Paolo

 

[PaoloT]

A marginal consideration is that there isn't a single workflow for translation. There are better practices, but they are not universally adopted.

I exchange data with a wide amount of translators, and I see four categories:

a) Those who work on IDML files using a CAT tool, and refine the result in InDesign.

b) Those who work directly in InDesign.

c) Those who ask me a Word doc, or export it from the final PDF file, and use it.

d) And those who ask me each separate page as an Adobe Illustrator file.

Category (d) is usually from China or the Arabic countries. It is, as far as I understand, an older practice with languages that have for long not being supported by page layout software. Since Publisher can't support these languages, I wouldn't be surprised that this can continue to be common practice. In the meantime, other software has added support for these languages, and the situation is changing. Material received in AI format is clearly non-reusable and a huge waste of money.

Category (c) is usually from less-technologically aware countries. Their language could be perfectly supported by modern tools, but they prefer to use a tool that is more commonly known inside the company or the referring translation agency. It happens me a lot, here in Italy. This material is nearly non-reusable, unless one plans to redo the page layout work. A huge waste of money.

Category (b) is very current. The good thing is that the translation can be reused, and preserves the original page layout and file format. For what I can see, it corresponds to a much slower translation work, since the translator has to find text to be reused, or refer to some rough comparison file generated by a text editor or by Adobe Acrobat. Contracting prices is a fight. It is a decent waste of money.

Category (a) is not very common, but does happen. It is that of the fastest translators. They give a quick price estimate. They can reuse their previous work. The files received are in the original format. It should be the universal method, but there is a lot of resistance in adopting CAT tools, maybe because the initial logic has to be grabbed before being used. But shouldn't self-proclaimed "linguists" be mentally very flexible?

As a negative, category (a) often tends to accept automatic translation, with very low resulting quality. Not completely their fault: if even the major companies accept unreadable translated text, why waste more time and ask more for a better work?

Paolo