[Fwd: Re: Revisiting Frame vs. Word in light of new capabilities]

[Lisa Roth <roth -dot- lisa -at- jimmy -dot- harvard -dot- edu>]

Along the lines of what Gene mentioned, it's also interesting to note
whether the translators are not only *ready* but also *interested* in
getting on-board with a move to FM. You see, if they need to undergo
training in FM in order to get working, you are going to need a certain
level of buy-in on their part if there is to be any success.

What might make them not be interested/invested in making this switch?
If they are in fact translators by profession (and not TWs), they may
not give a hoot about tools. Instead, their personal focus may be more
on the importance of proper translation and language nuances (as it
should be). Thus, their professional interest may very well be in
getting the words trasnlated and the docs out the door, as opposed to
learning the finer aspects of print publishing. If that's the case, it
may be a situation of trying to put a square peg into the proverbial
round hole by forcing them to be more TW-like when they don't want or
need to.

And yes, it's possible to argue that s/he should find some new
translators if they're not on-board with the program, but good
translators are hard to come by. (I have worked as a translator, and I
know that side of the fence.) If I had to get my work translated, I'd
far prefer the translator who sent me ASCII text that was properly
translated than the one who sent me gibberish that was thoughtfully and
artfully laid out.

Just my two cents!



Gene Kim-Eng wrote: