Vol. 1, Issue 2 Winter 2021 - DIALOGUE AND EXCHANGE: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE IN THE HUMANITIES
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Proceedings of the conference:
DIALOGUE AND EXCHANGE:
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE IN THE
HUMANITIES
24-26 OCTOBER 2020 CAIRO/ EGYPT
Vol. 1, Issue 2
Winter 2021
Winter 2021
Vol. 1, Issue 2, Winter 2021
Proceedings of the conference:
DIALOGUE AND EXCHANGE:
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE IN
THE HUMANITIES
24-26 OCTOBER 2020 CAIRO/ EGYPT
T ranscultural Journal for Humanities and Social Sciences (TJHSS) is a journal
committed to disseminate a new range of interdisciplinary and transcultural topics in
Huminites and social sciences. It is an open access, peer reviewed and refereed journal,
published by Badr University in Cairo, BUC, to provide original and updated knowledge
platform of international scholars interested in multi-inter disciplinary researches in all
languages and from the widest range of world cultures. It’s an online academic journal that
offers print on demand services.
TJHSS Aims and Objectives:
To promote interdisciplinary studies in the fields of Languages, Humanities and Social Sciences
and provide a reliable academically trusted and approved venue of publishing Language and
culture research.
Print ISSN 2636-4239
Online ISSN 2636-4247
Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Hussein Mahmoud
BUC
Cairo, Egypt
Email Address: hussein.hamouda@buc.edu.eg
Associate Editor
Prof. Fatma Taher
BUC
Cairo, Egypt
Email Address: fatma.taher@buc.edu.eg
Prof. Carlo Saccone
Bologna, University
Email Address: carlo.saccone@unibo.it
Prof. Baher El Gohary
Ain Shams University
Cairo, Egypt
Accessibility in the Computer-Aided Translation
Tools for English-Arabic Language Pair
Iman Magdy Refaat
Assistant Lecturer
Department of English
School of Linguistics and Translation, Badr University in Cairo
Abstract
Computer Aided Translation (CAT) Tools are essential in the current market. They are required
by the clients to be used by the translators as they keep the format of the source text, consistency
on both terminology and style levels throughout the project, and save time and money for both
clients and translators. However, one of the main disadvantages of the most commonly-used
CAT tools, like Trados, MemoQ, and more, is that they are not accessible to visually-impaired
translators. This critical disadvantage limits their job opportunities in the market.
As per the best knowledge of the current researcher, most of the previous studies that are
conducted on the accessibility in CAT tools are for different language pairs except the Arabic
language and the Arab visually-impaired translators’ experience with CAT tools is not evaluated.
The current paper sheds the light on the accessibility in CAT tools in the Arab market to explore
their efficiency for the visually-impaired Arab professional translators working on the English-
Arabic language pair. This paper aims to explore how the commonly-used CAT tools are
accessible or inaccessible, to what extent they are compatible with the screen readers, and to
suggest alternative CAT tools to be accessible to the visually-impaired translators and also to be
compatible with the commonly-used CAT tools.
This study is conducted in the light of Skopos theory by Vermeer (2006). Quantitative
and qualitative questionnaire is designed in order to be answered by Arab visually-impaired
professional translators and students in language and translation universities who use CAT tools
to explore to what extent the CAT tools are accessible and compatible with the screen readers.
Moreover, case studies are conducted in order to get more insights on the accessibility in the
commonly-used CAT tools. At the end of this research, alternative CAT tools would be
suggested to be accessible to the visually-impaired translators and also to be compatible with the
commonly-used CAT tools in order to give them the chance to have job opportunities in the
localization and translation market.
Keywords: Accessibility, Localization, CAT tools, Skopos, Translation Memory, Quality,
Productivity
____________________________________________________
been many endeavors in order to develop
I ntroduction: Technology in the
translation and localization field has
become an essential and main
requirement for clients and translators.
Millions of words need to be translated
tools to help translators to increase their
productivity to meet
tools are the Computer Aided Translation
the
translation/localization market needs. Such
(CAT) tools which are required by clients to
within tight deadlines. Therefore, there have be used by translators in order to guarantee
36
the speed of their translation performance opportunities. However, what about the
for increasing productivity and to provide visually-impaired translators? Can they use
translation with high quality despite any CAT tools? Are they accessible to them? To
tight deadlines. what extent are the commonly-used CAT
CAT tools have become available for tools accessible or inaccessible? To what
individual translators, not only companies, extent are they compatible with the screen
since the 1990s in order to meet the millions readers? This paper sheds the light on the
of words that are needed to be translated by accessibility in the CAT tools and whether
big companies, like IBM and Microsoft, for the visually-impaired translators can use
localizing their products to be promoted and them without any obstacles or not.
sold in each market and locale. There are many papers which tackle
The concept of localization was accessibility in CAT tools; however, there
generated at that time and it is defined by are no studies, according to the best
LISA (the Localization Industry Standards knowledge of the current researcher,
Association) as a process that “involves conducted on the Arab visually-impaired
taking a product and making it linguistically translators in the Arab market. Therefore,
and culturally appropriate to the target locale the current research paper tries to explore
(country/region and language) where it will the accessibility of CAT tools and whether
be used and sold” (Pym, “Technology” 13). the Arab visually-impaired translators can
For managing this process, CAT tools are use them, specially the commonly-used
developed in order to handle all elements ones, or not. If they are inaccessible, how far
that need technical preparations in order to are they inaccessible? And what are the
publish the content properly on all digital alternative CAT tools that they can use
environments like software, websites, and instead to cope with the market needs?
applications. 2. Literature Review
Clients have requirements that 2.1 Overview on Computer Aided
should be considered by translators. Translation Tools
According to Skopos (purpose) theory by The history of CAT tools began in the cold
Vermeer, a translation brief is sent by the world war when the information collected
commissioner (client) in order to be by the intelligence services needed to be
followed by the translator. Skopos rule is translated without delay (Cocci, 2007). For
any action that is determined by its purpose; the first time, funds were allocated for the
it is a function of its purpose. CAT tools are translation technology. The first attempts of
required by clients and they mention in their machine translation were in the specialized
translation briefs which CAT tool should be research centers financed by the USA and
used by translators or the translators, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
themselves, decide to use a CAT tool in The term Machine Translation (MT) was
order to meet the deadline and quality level coined by Warren Weaver, in 1947, who
required by the client. Therefore, the current defended the possibility of developing an
research paper is written in the light of this automatic translation program. Systran
theory. (System Translation) was invented by the
Translators are required to learn American researcher Toma in those years
CAT tools in order to cope with the current and used by the US Air Force for translating
market requirements. In the Arab market, reports and documents written in Russian.
especially the Egyptian market, translators This system is still used until now by the
use CAT tools in order to increase their job European Commission. (Cocci, 2007)
37
Between the late 1960s and early Vu, by the end of the decade
1970s, the idea that machines will be able to Trados became the clear
provide translation services was dismissed market leader in CAT
(NordicTrans, 2018). The approach during software until it was acquired
this period was that machines can work by competitor SDL in 2005.”
alongside the human translators, “not so (Andovar.com).
much as to do simultaneous translation but There are many CAT tools in the
to facilitate the work of the human linguist” market now offline (desktop-based tools)
(NordicTrans, 2018). and online (cloud/server-based tools) that
The first attempts that form the basis are used by many translators and required by
of today’s CAT tools were like creating many clients like MemoQ, Wordfast,
terminology databases, translation MateCat, Memsource, and more.
memories, and other similar developments Big companies like IBM and
in the late 1970s. In the mid-1980s, TSS Microsoft among others need their products
(Translation Support System) was the first to be localized in several languages within a
CAT tool developed by the US company short time. Therefore, ideas are put forth and
Alpnet. However, this system was limited investments made in order to increase
because of its high cost which made it productivity and quality within tight
usable by large companies only; “IBM was deadlines and to develop computer-aided
one of the first purchasers of this system” translation tools that can help translators to
(Cocci, 2007). increase their productivity and meet the
The Dutch company INK, in the client’s requirements (the “commission” as
second half of the 1980s, developed a per Skopos theory by Vermeer) and translate
system called "TextTools," inspired by TSS. millions of words in a short time.
TRADOS GmbH, a language service Back in the 1980s, Microsoft was
provider (LSP) company established in 1984 developing software for the North American
by Jochen Hummel and Iko Knyphausen in market and then translating it from English
Stuttgart, became its official dealer in to other main European languages: German,
Germany. (Cocci, 2007) French, Spanish, and more. At that time, this
The CAT tools technology only was adequate and manageable because few
found its foothold with the release of Trados foreign languages were targeted. However,
MultiTerm and Translator’s Workbench in as the number of markets increased, the
the early 1990s by the German company simple one-to-one language translation
TRADOS GmbH. model became inadequate and expensive.
“In 1994, Trados released a Pym explains that “The software required
Windows version with a MS not just replacement of the pieces of
Word interface and received language in the menus, dialogue boxes, and
a major boost in 1997 when Help files visible to the user, but also
Microsoft decided to not only attention to a long list of apparently minor
use their products for internal details like date formats, hotkeys, and
localization needs, but also punctuation conventions.” (Pym,
acquired a 20% share in the “Exploring” 121). Some of these apparently
company. Despite minor items would supposedly be done by a
competition from the likes of translator. Some indeed concern translation;
IBM’s Translation Manager others require a technical engineer; and
2, STAR Transit and Déjà others require telecommunications
38technicians, terminologists, marketing proper internationalization
experts, and perhaps lawyers. “Together, and product design, as well as
these tasks are ideally carried out by teams, marketing, sales, and support
of which translators are a part. The entire in the world market (LISA 3).
process is then called “localization,” of This meaning is more
which translation is a part” (Pym, specific than the general
“Exploring” 121). process of economic
The term “localization” is defined by globalization. (Pym,
LISA (the Localization Industry Standards “Exploring” 137)
Association) as a process that “involves So, localization is a broad process
taking a product and making it linguistically that includes translation, technical
and culturally appropriate to the target locale engineering, and culture adaptation for
(country/region and language) where it will marketing purposes. It is challenging and
be used and sold” (Pym, “Technology” 13). needs both linguistic and technical skills.
In localization, a product is like software,
application, website, manual, and so forth 2.2 Skopos Theory
which needs to be adapted to each target Vermeer’s Skopos theory is the theory that
“locale”. The term “Locale” is the source will be used in this study because according
from which the word “localization” was to the Skopos (purpose) and the
developed. The key concepts of localization commission’s (client) requirements, the type
are defined by LISA as follows; of CAT tool and translation strategy that
Localization (L10n) involves should be used during the
taking a product and making localization/translation process will be
it linguistically and culturally determined. Vermeer (2004) in his paper
appropriate to the target “Skopos and Commission in Translation
locale (country/region and Action” explains the concept of the Skopos
language) where it will be theory in which he understands translation
used and sold (LISA 3). as an action that has aim or purpose that
Internationalization (i18n) is leads to the target text. Such purpose and
the process of generalizing a mode in which the action (translation
product so that it can handle strategies) is realized are determined by a
multiple languages and commission (client or the translator
cultural conventions without him/herself) (236).
the need for redesign. ReiB, Katharina & Vermeer, Hans J.
Internationalization takes in their book Towards a General Theory of
place at the level of program Translation Action: Skopos Theory
design and document Explained. Routledge, 2014 explains Skopos
development (LISA 3). theory that was introduced in an essay
Globalization (g11n) published in Lebende Sprachen (Vermeer
addresses the business issues [1978]1983), in which the author proposed a
associated with taking a “framework for a general theory of
product global. In the translation” and called it “Skopos” which
globalization of high-tech means purpose. The object of this theory is
products this involves translational action. The process of
integrating localization translating or interpreting, its product (the
throughout a company, after translatum) and the relations between them,
39i.e. how they are interdependent, is 2.3 Previous Studies on Accessibility in
discussed in this book. CAT Tools
The main difference between this There are many studies conducted on the
theory and the other translation theories is accessibility issue in CAT tools for visually-
that it is a theory of translational action impaired translators; however, such studies
which is governed by its purpose. The Greek haven’t been conducted in the Arab world in
word Skopos means “purpose” and the terms the field of English into Arabic translation.
purpose, aim, function, and Skopos are used Vázquez and Mileto in their article
in this book as synonyms. The Skopos rule On the Lookout for Accessible Translation
is: any action is determined by its purpose; it Aids: Current Scenario and New Horizons
is a function of its purpose. In other words, for Blind Translation 2016, published in
“the end justifies the means”. The Journal of Translator Education and
sociological rule: the intended audience Translation Studies (TETS), concentrate on
(addressees) may be described as a specific how CAT tools are accessible and used by
kind or subset of Skopos. Reiß points out, it the visually-impaired translators especially
is “not only the purpose of a particular that they become “a prime requirement for
translation which plays a role but also translators to successfully enter the
commissioners or publishers who may have marketplace” (155). In their exploratory case
a say” (90). studies, they want to discover the evolution
The concept of equivalence and in terms of accessibility of SDL translation
adequacy is explained in this book. The technology across different tool versions,
translator only searches for equivalents for namely SDL Trados Studio 2009, 2011, and
certain characteristics of the text. In such 2014. They aimed to understand “where the
case, “the guideline for the translation accessibility boundaries of the tool were and
process will be that of achieving adequacy; what could be achieved by a blind user with
by selecting the appropriate linguistic signs it.” (122). They choose SDL Trados Studio
for achieving the purpose with regard to the tool because it is the most popular tool in the
characteristic in question.” The equivalence market and they want to further investigate
relationship in translation refers to “whether the reports made by different blind
equivalence between two texts. Equivalence translators through The Round Table
means that two texts achieve functions of mailing list or personal regarding its
equal value within the culture-specific inaccessibility held true.” (122). There were
communicative events in which they are accessibility issues in Studio 2009, 2011,
used. and 2014. They are not user friendly for
Skopos theory includes three factors: blind translators. The researchers found out
commission's translation brief, purpose, and that in comparison with their sighted peers,
translation action. In the current localization the visually-impaired translators don’t
and translation market, the client sends a experience the same seamless interaction
translation brief to the translator where all between translation software and assistive
instructions, purpose, and requirements are technologies (AT). Their findings reveal that
mentioned therein. The translator should the inaccessibility of most popular CAT
observe all these instructions and tools may limit the chances of blind students
requirements in order to determine which to fully develop their translation careers.
CAT tool should be used and the translation Therefore, the tool developers and
strategy that should be applied. translation technology lecturers need to
change their mindset and put into their
40consideration those blind translators and there are alternatives for the inaccessible
students and make tools accessible by them. CAT tools.
The article “Translation tools and 3. Testing the Accessibility of the
software - help or hindrance?” written by Computer-Aided Translation Tools
Tara Owton in Euroblind Newsletter in 3.1 Research Problem
2017, discusses the difficulties encountered CAT tools are an essential asset that
by blind and visually-impaired translators should be learned and used by the translators
when using translation tools. She explains in the current market in order to meet the
that Trados is the CAT tool that she should client’s needs and requirements. However,
use because it is the most commonly used according to the previous studies mentioned
CAT tool. above, the commonly used CAT tools are
In a recent research conducted in not accessible and incompatible with the
2018 by Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez, Dónal screen readers to be used by the visually-
Fitzpatrick, and Sharon O’Brien “Is Web- impaired and blind translators. This issue
Based Computer-Aided Translation (CAT) limits their job opportunities. However,
Software Usable for Blind Translators?” there are no studies, according to the best
states that recent experience reports by end knowledge of the current researcher, are
users that the commonly-used desktop-based conducted on the Arab market in general
computer-aided translation tools are not and the Egyptian one in particular to
compatible with screen readers so that discover whether the Arab translators
visually-impaired and blind translators encounter the same issues and limitations in
cannot use them. In this paper, it tests the using the CAT tools. The current paper tries
usability of two online CAT tools; MateCat to shed the light on the accessibility in CAT
and Memsource and whether they can be tools and to what extent they are accessible
alternatives for desktop applications. The or inaccessible for the Arab visually-
results indicate that “MateCat is impaired professional translators and the
significantly more usable than Memsource, students in the language schools.
although changes would be needed in the Based on a survey conducted in the
former for blind translators to be able to master’s thesis, “The Use of Computer-
perform a translation job completely Aided Translation Tools in English to
autonomously and efficiently.” (31). Arabic Translation: A Study in the Light of
Overall, this study indicates that the Skopos Theory” in 2019, by the current
accessibility is still low in the computer- researcher and answered by 120 professional
aided translation tools and developers translators in the English to Arabic
should consider this issue in order to localization and translation field, despite
guarantee equal opportunities for all in the their many advantages, there are also
translation market. disadvantages. One of the main
All of these studies are conducted on disadvantages of the commonly-used CAT
visually-impaired translators from different tools is their inaccessibility and
nationalities rather than Arab ones. More incompatibility with screen readers; this
studies are needed to be conducted on the critical issue which limits the job
Arab visually-impaired translators in order opportunities for visually-impaired
to find out whether they can use CAT tools translators as per their comments in the
or they face obstacles because of its survey as shown in the screenshot below
inaccessibility. Therefore, the current paper
tries to explore such issues and whether
41insights about the accessibility of CAT
tools. (2) Case studies are conducted for
accurate qualitative evaluation.
As for the questionnaire, it is divided
into two parts: quantitative and qualitative
evaluations. For quantitative evaluation,
Computer System Usability Questionnaire
Figure 1: Figure 2.27: Participants’ comments to the survey “The (CSUQ) is used in order to measure the
Use of Computer-Aided Translation Tools in English to Arabic perceived usability of the accessibility in the
Translation” (64)
CAT tools. It consists of 19 questions with a
The commonly used CAT tools in the Arab 7-point Likert scale to score the tool’s
market in general and the Egyptian one in usefulness, information quality, and
particular are Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast interface quality. This questionnaire is
(desktop-based CAT tools) and Memsource, developed by Jim Lewis (1995, 2002) at
XTM, MateCat (web-based CAT tools) as IBM. The CSUQ is made up of four parts,
shown in the screenshot below: each consisting of items ranked on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = totally disagree and 7 =
totally agree): the overall satisfaction score
(OVERALL: all 19 Items), the system
usefulness score (SUSUSE: Items 1-8), the
information quality score (INFOQUAL:
Items 9-15), and the interface quality score
(INTERQUAL: Items 16-18). The mean,
median, and standard deviation of these 4
Figure 2: Figure 2.17: CAT tools used by the participants in parts are calculated accordingly. For
their career (45)
Some of the most commonly-used qualitative evaluation, it is based on the
CAT tools in the market, as per the survey observations and comments of the visually-
conducted in the master’s thesis, are tested impaired translators and students. It consists
in this paper in order to evaluate to what of 8 questions for discussing the experience
extent they are accessible to the Arab of the visually-impaired translator with the
visually-impaired translators. CAT tool, to what extent it is accessible and
compatible with the screen reader they use,
3.2 Participants, Tools, and Data and their point of view of the current
In order to evaluate the accessibility of these localization and translation market and their
CAT tools accurately, 2 methods are job opportunities in the current market. This
adopted. (1) a questionnaire is designed by questionnaire is designed with Google
Google Forms under the title “Quantitative Forms and sent to the visually-impaired
and Qualitative Evaluation of the translators and language and translation
Accessibility in the Computer-Aided school students in the Arab market. This
Translation Tools” for English-Arabic questionnaire is shared in LinkedIn,
language pair to be answered by Arab Facebook, and sent via emails to visually-
professional translators and students in impaired translators and students. Moreover,
language and translation universities. This semi-structured interviews are also
questionnaire is followed with semi- conducted with the respondents in order to
structured interviews in order to get more get more insights about the accessibility of
CAT tools.
42The quantitative questions are as commonly-used features by the translators
according to the survey conducted on her
MA thesis in 2019 and they were as shown
in the screenshot below:
Figure 5: Figure 2.19: CAT tools’ features that help in
enhancing the overall translation quality (47)
As per the screenshot above, the
commonly used features that their
accessibility needs to be tested by the
current researcher are: translation memory,
termbase, quality assurance/verification, and
tags among other parts in the user interface
as per each CAT tool tested in the current
shown in the screenshot below:
paper.
Figure 3: The quantitative CSUQ questions in the Quantitative 3.3 Results and Data Analysis
and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in the 12 Arab professional translators and
Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire
language and translation school students
answered the questionnaire. Most of the
The qualitative questions are as shown in the visually-impaired translators/students quit
screenshot below the translation career path because of the job
opportunity limitations they face because of
their disability and the inaccessibility of the
commonly-used CAT tools, like Trados and
MemoQ. Therefore, the number of the
respondents is few. Therefore, this
questionnaire is followed with semi-
structured interviews in order to get more
insights about the accessibility of CAT
tools. Case studies are also conducted in
Figure 4: The qualitative questions in the Quantitative and order to get accurate qualitative evaluation.
Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in the Computer-
Aided Translation Tools questionnaire Hereinbelow, the data analysis of both the
questionnaire/semi-structured interviews and
As for the case studies, they are the case studies.
conducted for qualitative evaluation with 3.3.1 SDL Trados Studio with the Screen
four Egyptian visually-impaired translators; Reader NVDA and JAWS (Desktop Tool):
three Egyptian professional translators and The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured
one university student. They help in trying Interviews Results:
different CAT tools in order to explore to As shown in the screenshot below,
what extent they are accessible or the rates of the four SDL Trados 2015 and
inaccessible and whether there are 2017 are low in the four parts. This indicates
alternatives for the inaccessible CAT tools. that the tool is not fully accessible to the
The current researcher concentrated on the visually impaired translators
43tools are less accessible than the older ones.
The most accessible one was the old version,
Trados 2007. The accessibility has become
lower and lower until the last version now,
SDL Trados 2021, which is not accessible at
all. The following table is not applicable to
SDL Trados 2021
Feature Accessibility Comment
Menus Yes N/A.
Editor Pane No N/A
(Source and
Target segments)
Tags No N/A
QA pane No N/A
Figure 6: The CSUQ questions for SDL Trados in the TM matches and No N/A
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in concordance
the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire TB No N/A
According to the replies to the Navigation Yes N/A
qualitative questions and the semi-structured Table 1: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in
SDL Trados
interviews, SDL Trados 2015 and later 3.3.2 Memsource Web Editor with the
versions are compatible with the screen Screen Reader NVDA (Cloud-Based
reader, JAWS or NVDA; however, not all Version):
features in the tool are accessible. Menus
and buttons are accessible; however, the The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured
main issue is in the Editor Pane (source and Interviews Results:
target columns) that is not accessible at all. As shown in the screenshot below,
It is not fully accessible. Therefore, client’s the rates of the mean, median, and standard
requirements could not be met. The deviation of the four parts of the CSUQ
participants recommend making hotkeys questionnaire are higher than SDL Trados.
easier to execute. Graphics and icons need to The rates indicate that the tool is highly
be labeled. Tags must be provided with their accessible to the visually-impaired
codes in order to be copied and pasted or translators.
there should be a function for their insertion.
Segments and target text area must be as text
boxes not labels
Case Studies:
SDL Trados 2015, 2017, and 2019
are tested with a university student (Ahmed
Saad from College of Language and
Communication, Arab Academy for
Science, Technology & Maritime Transport)
and professional translator (Mohamed
Aglan, a Proz-certified and professional
Figure 7: The CSUQ questions for Memsource Web Editor in
freelance translator). The table below the Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the
explains which parts in the tool are Accessibility in the Computer-Aided Translation Tools
questionnaire
accessible or inaccessible according to the According to the replies to the
observations of the current researchers with qualitative questions and the semi-structured
the participants in the case study. interviews, the participant’s view on
Unfortunately, the latest versions of the
44Memsource Web Editor with the screen difficult
Table 2: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in
reader NVDA, the last updated one, that it is Memsource Web Editor
compatible with the screen reader; however,
there are buttons that are not accessible and As for Memsource Desktop Editor (Desktop
need a mouse to press them. Moreover, Version) with the screen reader NVDA and
confirming segments cannot be done by the JAWS:
keyboard. It is not fully accessible. Feature Accessibility Comment
Therefore, sometimes the participant exports Menus Yes N/A.
Editor Pane Yes N/A
the file to work on it on a word file then (Source and
imports it to the tool for the final delivery. Target
Tasks could be delivered to the client as per segments)
Tags Yes Partially. Tags are not fully
their requirements. It needs improvements in read by the screen reader. By
order to use keyboard shortcuts to be the pauses and repetitions of
accessible to the visually-impaired the screen reader, the
visually-impaired translator
translators. can detect the number of tags
and insert them in their right
Case Studies: places by pressing F8.
QA pane No N/A
Memsource Web Editor and TM matches No N/A
Memsource Desktop Editor are tested with TM match No N/A
the university student, Ahmed Saad, and the percentage
professional freelance and PHD holder beside the
segment
translator, Dr. Mohamed Amin. TB No Termbase needs to be in
As for Memsource Web Editor (cloud-based Excel format or any other
tool) with the screen reader NVDA and format in order to be
accessible for the visually
JAWS: impaired translator outside
Feature Accessibility Comment the tool.
Menus Yes N/A. Labels of No N/A
Editor Pane No It is not fully- TM, TB, and
(Source and accessible. more
Target segments) Navigation Yes Partially. The navigation
Tags No However, the needs more improvement.
participant can Table 3: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in
notice them when Memsource Desktop Editor
the screen reader According to the above tables,
repeats the last
word before tags Memsource Desktop Editor is smoother in
twice. the usage and more accessible than
QA pane Yes Partially. The Memsource Web Editor. This is mainly
navigation is
difficult.
because the inaccessibility of the Editor
TM matches Yes Partially Pane (source and target segments) in the
TM match Yes Partially. It is Memsource Web Editor which is, in the
percentage beside only accessible
the segment by hovering the
contrary, fully accessible in Memsource
mouse over it. Desktop Editor.
TB No N/A Ahmed is not fully blind; therefore,
Labels of TM, Yes Partially. It is he can use the mouse to hover over the parts
TB, and more only accessible
by hovering the that cannot be reached by shortcuts in order
mouse over it to let the screen reader read them or to
Navigation No The navigation hardly see them like the inaccessible QA
among segments,
menus, buttons is pane in Memsource Desktop Editor.
45However, for the fully-blind translators, like As per the screenshot below which
Dr. Mohamed Amin, the mouse is shows the rates of the mean, median, and
impossible for them (they mainly use the standard deviation of the 4 parts of the
keyboard and its shortcuts). They can refer CSUQ questions, Wordfast Pro 5 is not
to Memsource Web Editor to run the QA as accessible.
it is not accessible in the desktop version.
Workarounds like this could be applied in
order to solve such accessibility issues.
3.3.3 Wordfast Pro 3 with the Screen Reader
NVDA (Desktop Tool):
The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured
Interviews Results:
As per the screenshot below which
shows the rates of the mean, median, and Figure 9: The CSUQ questions for Wordfast Pro 5 in the
standard deviation of the 4 parts of the Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in
the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire
CSUQ questions, Wordfast Pro 3 is partially According to the qualitative
accessible. questions and the semi-structured
interviews, the visually-impaired translator’s
point of view, It is incompatible with the
screen reader. It is not accessible at all.
Instead of improving the accessibility in the
last updated version, it is diminished.
3.3.5 MateCat with the Screen Readers
NVDA and JAWS (Cloud-Based Tool):
Figure 8: The CSUQ questions for Wordfast Pro 3 in the The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in Interviews Results:
the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire
As per the screenshot below,
According to the qualitative
questions and the semi-structured
interviews, the visually-impaired translator’s
point of view, Shimaa Ibrahim, freelance
translator and MA holder, of the
accessibility in Wordfast Pro 3 is that it is
compatible with the screen reader. Shortcuts
can be used; therefore, it facilitates the
performance. Files could be delivered as per
the client’s instructions; however, if there is MateCat is partially accessible and better
a complex format, it couldn’t be fully than Trados for example.
maintained. Figure 10: The CSUQ questions for MateCat in the
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in
the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire
3.3.4 Wordfast Pro 5 with the Screen According to the qualitative
Reader NVDA (Desktop Version): questions and the semi-structured
The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured interviews, it is compatible with the screen
Interviews Results: reader and accessible. However, the speed of
the cloud-based tool may be affected by the
46internet connection. TM and TB need to be JAWS is highly accessible in comparison
in other formats in order to be opened with with the other CAT tools mentioned above.
the tool (tmx and xls). Files can be delivered
properly with the same types and formats;
however, Trados Package (.sdlppx) files Figure 11: The CSUQ questions for MateCat in the
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in
cannot be opened with MateCat (.sdlxliff the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire
files can be opened). Tags accessibility According to the qualitative
needs to be improved. Hotkeys need to be questions and the semi-structured
improved in order to be easier to execute. A interviews, it is compatible with the screen
good alternative for Trados but not MemoQ reader and accessible to great extent. It has
as it cannot open a MemoQ file at all. an issue with the tags (the screen reader
Case Studies: reads them as pictures and does not specify
MateCat is tested by the university the type of each tag). QA pane is accessible.
student and the table below indicates its Termbase/Glossary file should be in xml
accessibility: format generated from SDLMultiterm. All
Feature Accessibility Comment file types can be handled and delivered with
Menus Yes N/A. the same formats except MemoQ files. Tags
Editor Pane Yes N/A
(Source and need to be presented in program codes rather
Target than graphics. A good alternative for Trados
segments) but not MemoQ.
Tags Yes Partially. They need more
improvement Case Studies:
QA pane Yes N/A Smartcat is tested with the university
TM matches Yes N/A visually-impaired student and the
TB Yes Termbase needs to be in
Excel format or any other accessibility is as shown in the table below:
format in order to be Feature Accessibility Comment
accessible for the visually Menus Yes N/A.
impaired translator. Editor Pane Yes N/A
Navigation Yes Partially. The navigation (Source and
needs more Target segments)
improvement. Tags Yes Partially. They
Table 4: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in need more
MateCat improvement
MateCat is a good alternative to QA pane Yes N/A
TM matches Yes N/A
Trados as it can open Trados files. However, TB Yes N/A
the TM should be in .tmx format not .sdltm Navigation Yes Partially. The
format in order to be opened in MateCat. TB navigation needs
needs to be in Excel sheet not .sdltb format more
improvement.
in order to be opened in MateCat. It cannot Table 5: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in
open Trados package files in .sdlppx format. Smartcat Desktop Editor
Smartcat is an excellent alternative
3.3.6 Smartcat with the Screen Readers to Trados as all Trados file formats can be
NVDA and JAWS (Cloud-Based Tool): opened via Smartcat: .sdlxliff file for the
The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured bilingual file, .sdltm for the TM, .sdlppx for
Interviews Results: the package files, and return package in
According to the table below that .sdlrpx format can be generated from
shows the mean, median, and standard Smartcat. Thus, all client’s requirements
deviation of the 4 categories of the CSUQ who send tasks to be worked on Trados can
questions, Smartcat with the screen reader be easily met via Smartcat. Regarding the
47TB, it needs to be in xml format generated inside it is not user friendly (they are not
from SDL Multiterm in order to be opened working properly in most cases). MemoQ
in Smartcat. However, MemoQ files cannot file cannot be opened therein. Any xml-
be opened via Smartcat; therefore it is not an based file and PDFs can be opened with this
alternative to MemoQ. tool.
3.3.7 Fluency Now with the Screen Case Studies:
Readers NVDA and JAWS (Desktop Fluency Now is tested with the
Tool): university visually-impaired student and the
The Questionnaire and Semi-Structured professional visually-impaired translator and
Interviews Results: PHD holder. Its accessibility is indicated in
According to the rates of mean, the table below.
median, and deviation shown in the Feature Accessibility Comment
Menus Yes N/A.
screenshot below, the accessibility of Editor Pane Yes N/A
Fluency Now is high in comparison with the (Source and Target
other tools mentioned above. Its segments)
Tags Yes N/A
accessibility reaches 100% with the screen QA pane Yes N/A
reader NVDA (the last updated version). TM matches Yes The embedded TM
that is auto-created
inside the tool is
accessible;
however, the
client’s TM cannot
be opened and its
matches cannot be
read.
TB No N/A
Navigation Yes N/A
Table 6: The features that are accessible and inaccessible in
Smartcat Desktop Editor
Fluency Now is highly-accessible. It
fits the fully visually-impaired translators.
No mouse is needed to navigate or open
Figure 12: The CSUQ questions for Fluency Now in the
Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of the Accessibility in
menus. Trados .sdlxliff file can be opened,
the Computer-Aided Translation Tools questionnaire tags are well preserved, and the translated
According to the qualitative file can be delivered with the same format as
questions and the semi-structured per the client’s requirements. However, the
interviews, it is compatible with the screen terminology and translation legacy kept in
reader. However, with JAWS, there is the client’s TM cannot be adhered to and
difficulty in reading Arabic text as it reads it followed because they cannot be opened
in a reverse way. Therefore, NVDA needs to inside the tool.
be used in order to read the Arabic text. It is As per the current researcher’s
accessible; however, as a CAT tool, it is not observation, Fluency Now cannot be an
friendly; TM matches are not accurate and if alternative to Trados as the TM and TB
there is a glossary, the term-highlighting cannot be used in the tool; therefore, the
techniques are neither accessible nor visually-impaired translator cannot stick
available in the accessibility window. Files strongly to the client’s requirements and the
could be delivered with the same formats. A translation quality needed. Project glossary
good alternative for Trados as it opens in the TB and translation legacy in the TM
sdlxliff files; however, the TM and TB should be adhered to by the translators for
48keeping consistency with the project’s The current researcher was teaching
terminology and the previous style and a CAT tools course for Term-8 students at
translation kept in the TM. These translation the College of Language and
quality requirements cannot be met by the Communication, Arab Academy for
visually-impaired translators with Fluency Science, Technology and Maritime
Now. Transport. The visually-impaired student
3.4 The Final Results was trained on Smartcat as an alternative to
According to the questionnaire rates SDL Trados. All assignments were delivered
mentioned above, the order of CAT tools successfully by him as per the instructions.
according to their accessibility is as follows: He got A+ in this course.
Fluency Now is the higher one among the Practical Application in a
CAT tools, Smartcat is the second, then Localization/Translation Company:
MateCat, Memsource, Wordfast Pro3, The current researcher worked with
Trados, and the lowest accessibility CAT the visually-impaired student as an intern in
tool and comes at the end is Wordfast Pro5. the internship training program at Arabize
for localization and translation and as a new
hire as a junior translator.
In the internship program, the current
researcher trained him on MateCat and he
could finish 5000-word file in 3 days as
required. His quality was very good
according to the criteria specified at
Arabize. He adhered to the legacy in the TM
and the terminology in the TB as it was
Figure 13: The order of CAT tools according to their inserted in the tool and he could detect them
accessibility as per the questionnaire rates.
while he was working.
3.5 Practical Application
In the new-hire orientation period,
According to the current researcher’s
the current researcher trained him on
observations in the case studies, Smartcat is
Smartcat as an alternative to Trados in order
the most practical CAT tool that could be an
to finish any miscellaneous projects. A
alternative to SDL Trados in order to finish
sample file was assigned to him and he
any task required by the current clients in
worked on it via Smartcat smoothly. He was
the translation and localization market.
also trained on Memsource Desktop Editor
Memsource Desktop Editor can be used
in order to work on Microsoft tasks. He
instead of the Memsource Web Editor.
could finish all the assigned tasks
However, TM, TB, and QA are not
successfully with high quality and quantity
accessible. MateCat is also an alternative to
within tight deadlines as required by the
Trados; however, it needs workarounds to
client. Recently, he could finish 3000 words
accept the unsupportive formats in the tool;
within the 8-working hours with high quality
like SDLTM file needs to be in tmx format
as per the client’s requirements.
and SDLTB file needs to be in Excel format,
etc. 4. Conclusion and Recommendations
The current researcher worked with a This study has tried to shed the light
visually-impaired student and translator in on the accessibility in CAT tools in the Arab
both educational and professional market. It tries to explore to what extent
environments. they are accessible and what are the
Practical Application in a University: alternative CAT tools that could be
49accessible to the visually-impaired accessible. CAT tool developers should test
translators. According to the researcher’s their products using screen readers, label
best knowledge, there are few studies their app controls, and avoid using graphical
conducted on CAT tools in general in the buttons. Visually-impaired translators
Arab market. However, regarding the should be part of the testing team even on a
accessibility in CAT tools for the visually- volunteering base. OCR function needs to be
impaired translators, there are studies improved. On the market level, clients
conducted on this issue; however, there are should note that visually-impaired
no studies conducted on the Arabic language translators can be productive on cloud-based
and the Arab visually-impaired translators CAT tools especially Smartcat and MateCat.
and whether such programs fit the English- In this case, for more security, clients can
Arabic language pair or not. make sure of the tool's privacy policy.
According to the results concluded Unfortunately, the blind translator should
from the questionnaire, semi-structured not mention their blindness! While many
interviews, and the current researcher’s CAT tools are not putting blind in mind,
observations in the case studies, Fluency blind people are overloaded with preset
Now is 100% accessible; however, it doesn’t ideas that are not urging them to fight for
fit the market requirements regarding their rights in terms of accessibility. Clients
sticking to the legacy in the translation don't know much about screen readers and
memory and the approved terminology accessibility. Clients can give more
translations in the termbase which are not opportunities to the visually impaired by
user-friendly inside Fluency Now. allowing them to work on alternatives to
Moreover, the visually-impaired translator Trados and MemoQ.
needs to switch between screen readers in According to the above observations
order to read the Arabic text inside the tool. by the visually-impaired translators, the
Smartcat is the most practical CAT tool that current researcher recommends that more
could be an alternative to SDL Trados in academic studies are needed to be conducted
order to finish any task required by the on CAT tools, localization, and translation
current clients in the translation and technologies in the field of English to
localization market. Memsource Desktop Arabic translation in the Arab market. The
Editor can be used instead of the accessibility in CAT tools needs to be
Memsource Web Editor. However, TM, TB, deeply tested and to explore other alternative
and QA are not accessible. CAT tools to be accessible to the visually-
The visually-impaired translators impaired translators. Initiatives are needed
share their observations and by the language and translation colleges and
recommendations on both technical and the localization and translation companies in
market levels. On the technical level, they order to involve the visually-impaired
need graphics and icons in the CAT tools to students and translators in the market. The
be labeled in order to be read by the screen universities can help the visually-impaired
readers. Tags must be provided with their students by training them on the
codes in order to be copied and pasted alternative/accessible CAT tools. The
properly. There should be a function for localization and translation companies can
their insertion. Hotkeys need to be easier to help the visually-impaired translators by
execute because mouse cannot be used by hiring them and allowing them to use the
the visually-impaired persons. The editor alternative CAT tools that would be
pane (source and target) should be accessible to them as long as all the clients’
50requirements will be met and the file will be “LISA QA Model.” LISA.org. 2011,
https://www.lisa.org/products/qamodel/
delivered in the required formats. Accessed 20 April 2016.
Advantages of CAT tools are more Mahfouz, Iman. “Attitudes to CAT Tools: Application on
than their disadvantages as per the survey’s Egyptian Translation Students and
Professionals.” Arab World English Journal
responses in the MA thesis conducted by the (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (4). July 2018.
current researcher (Refaat 24); however, in DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/call4.6.
the current researcher’s point of view, the Accessed 20 Jan 2019.
“What are Computed Aided Translation Tools and Their
critical disadvantage of the most commonly- Evolution.” NordicTrans. March 2019,
used CAT tools, like Trados and memoQ, is https://www.nordictrans.com/blog/how-
that it is not accessible for the visually- computer-assisted-translation-tools-evolved/.
Accessed 15 March 2019.
impaired translators. Developers of CAT Pym, Anthony. “Natural and Directional Equivalence in
tools should put into consideration this Theories of Translation.” International Journal
important market sector in order to not lose on Translation Studies 19. 2007. p. 271.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/28625
it and to not limit the job opportunities for 978/natural-directional-equivalence-theories-
the visually-impaired translators. There are translation. Accessed 4 Jan. 2017,
alternative CAT tools rather than Trados and --- & Jose Remone Gil. Technology and Translation (a
pedagogical overview). Universitat Rovira i
memoQ like: Fluency Now; however, it is Virgili: Tarragona, 2006,
not mostly required by clients and it is http://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/online/translation/B
expensive, Smartcat and MateCat are online iauPym_TechnologyAndTranslation. Accessed 4
Jan. 2017.
tools and free ones; however, they are not --- Article, Localization from the Perspective of Translation
100% accessible, and Wordfast Pro3 is a Studies: Overlaps in the Digital Divide?. 2014.
desktop tool and it is also not a 100% http://www.researchgate.net/publication/250363
090_Localization_from_the_Perspective_of_Tra
accessible. Such tools could be like other nslation_Studies_Overlaps_in_the_Digital_Divi
options/alternatives for the visually- de
impaired translators; however, developers of --- “Localization.” Exploring Translation Theories.
Routledge: New York. 2010.
the most commonly-used CAT tools should --- Localization: On its nature, virtues and dangers.
consider them and improve the accessibility University Rovira i Virgili: Tarrogana, 2005,
thereof. https://www.google.com.eg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=
&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8
&ved=0CBsQFjAAahUKEwjP5K2f3JDJAhVF
References OhoKHSgPCsI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusuaris.t
Cocci, Lucia. “CAT tools for Beginners.” Translation inet.cat%2Fapym%2Fon-
Journal. Translated from German by Gabe line%2Ftranslation%2FLocalization_bergen.doc
Bokor, vol. 13, no. 3, 2009. &usg=AFQjCNGQtyJLxWP6uJzdxrGMs9-
https://translationjournal.net/journal/50caten.htm CJQGtXA&sig2=rglUYg3eosrqx8Mu7Nu08Q&
. Accessed 20 July 2018. bvm=bv.107467506,d.ZWU. Accessed 4 Jan.
“Computer-Aided Translation (CAT) Tools.” Andovar 2017.
Academy. https://www.andovar.com/computer- Quaranta, Barbra. Arabic and Computer-Aided
aided-translation-cat-tools/. Accessed 20 July 2018. Translation: an integrated approach. Università
Esselink, Bert. Practical Guide for Localization. John degli Studi del Molise, 2011, http://www.mt-
Benjamin Publishing Company, archive.info/Aslib-2011-Quaranta.pdf. Accessed
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Vol. 4, 2000 1 May 2017.
Lewis, J. R. “IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Refaat, Iman. The Use of Computer-Aided Translation
Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Tools in English to Arabic Translation: A Study
Instructions for Use”, International Journal of in the Light of the Skopos Theory, Cairo
Human-Computer Interaction, 1995 7:1, pp 57- University, 2019. P 44-45.
78. Reiss, Katharina and Vermeer, Hans. Towards a General
“LISA QA Metrics.” SDL Product Help. 2015, Theory of Translation Action. Routledge. 2014,
http://producthelp.sdl.com/SDL_TMS_2011/en/ P 90.
Creating_and_Maintaining_Organizations/Mana Silvia Rodríguez Vázquez, Dónal Fitzpatrick, and Sharon
ging_QA_Models/LISA_QA_Model.htm. O’Brien. “Is Web-Based Computer-Aided
Accessed 20 July 2018. Translation (CAT) Software Usable for Blind
51Translators?”, Computers Helping People with
Special Needs, ICCHP, 2018
Singh, Nitish. Localization Strategies for Global E-
Business. Cambridge University Press, New
York, 2012,
https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=rTQ5TN
JpWz8C&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=Multilin
gual.+The+Guide+from+Multilingual.+Writing
+for+Translation+2006&source=bl&ots=VvQlN
KhvqM&sig=7H6OkcQg3ORwxxsYg2j1iQYW
LQc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhqpj4zM7
TAhUJXhoKHZhxAbYQ6AEIUzAJ#v=onepag
e&q=Multilingual.%20The%20Guide%20from
%20Multilingual.%20Writing%20for%20Transl
ation%202006&f=false. Accessed 1 May 2017.
Tabor, Jared. “CAT Tool Use By Translators: What Are
They Using?” Translator T.O, 28 March 2013,
https://prozcomblog.com/2013/03/28/cat-tool-
use-by-translators-what-are-they-using/
Accessed 9 Dec. 2018.
Thawabteh, Mohamed. The Intricacies of Translation
Memory Tools: With Particular Reference to
Arabic-English Translation, 2013,
https://www.localisation.ie/sites/default/files/pu
blications/Vol12_1_Thawabteh.pdf. Accessed 1
May 2017.
Vázquez, Rodriguez, et al. “On the Lookout for Accessible
Translation Aids: Current Scenario and New
Horizons for Blind Translation”, Journal of
Translator Education and Translation Studies
(TETS), 2016, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 115-135,
http://docplayer.net/101542682-On-the-lookout-
for-accessible-translation-aids-current-scenario-
and-new-horizons-for-blind-translation-students-
and-professionals.html. Accessed 4 Feb. 2019.
---. “Is Web-Based Computer-Aided Translation (CAT)
Software Usable for Blind Translators?”
Computer Helping People with Special Needs.
16th International Conference, ICCHP 2018.
Linz, Austria July 11-13, 2018. Proceedings,
Part 1, pp. 32-34, shorturl.at/mnORU. Accessed
4 Feb. 2019.
Vermeer, Hans. “Skopos and Commission in Translational
Action.” Translation Studies Reader. Ed.
Lawrence Venuti. Routledge: New York, 2000,
pp. 221-327.
“What are Computed Aided Translation Tools and Their
Evolution.” NordicTrans. March 2019,
https://www.nordictrans.com/blog/how-
computer-assisted-translation-tools-evolved/.
Accessed 15 March 2019.
52You can also read
