It’s more than a hashtag; it’s a social movement. And it’s growing.
A movement among Indian consumers to force the vendors who depend on their business to actually support their native languages.
As this Times of Indiaarticle notes: From ATMs to deposit slips, withdrawal challans and call centres, most public and private banks feel that service in Hindi and English should suffice their customer base –– Indians who converse in 22 major languages and 720 dialects.
This article is specific to the banking industry, but it’s safe to say that this is the beginning of something much bigger. Linguistically, India has been poorly served by websites.
As I noted in the 2018 Web Globalization Report Card, only 7% of the global websites studied support Hindi, followed by Urdu and Tamil. According to research conducted by Nielsen in 2017, 68% of Indian internet users consider local-language content to be more reliable than English. Facebook certainly understands this; Facebook supports more than half of India’s official languages. And it’s no surprise that Facebook now has more users in India than in the US.
Fortunately, some Indian banks are now becoming more multilingual. The Times of India article notes:
Private banks such as ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank are trying to be more multi-lingual in their digital banking strategy. “For instance, the Kotak Bharat app is aimed at financial inclusion. Users can transfer money, recharge their mobile, buy insurance, etc in Hindi, English, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil or Kannada. We plan to expand the app to handle other regional languages,” says Deepak Sharma, chief digital officer at Kotak Mahindra Bank.
And as you can see by this excerpt from my newly updated IDN poster, India represents a significant diversity of languages and scripts:
Languages are more than a means to an end; they are a sign of respect.
And companies that invest in languages are not only investing in their customers but investing in their own future.
This book is the result of the past decade spent working with marketing and web teams around the world. I’ve long wanted to have something I could pass along that would demystify the process of product or website globalization and provide insights into languages, cultures and countries. Such as Brazil:
Too often people get overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, not to mention bewildering lingo and acronyms such as FIGS (French, Italian, German Spanish) and L10n (localization). What I always tell people is that you don’t have to speak a half-dozen languages to succeed in this field, but you do have to know what questions to ask. Hopefully this book will help.
The book is now available through Amazon or by request from any local bookstore. You can learn more here.
PS: If you’d like to order multiple copies for your teams, quantity discounts are available. Simply contact me using this form.
A few years ago I wrote about the translation icon and its many variations at that point in time.
I thought now would be a good time to revisit this icon.
Let’s start with the Google Translate. This icon has not changed in substance over the years but it has been streamlined a great deal.
Here is the icon used for its app:
Microsoft uses a similar icon across its website, apps, and APIs:
I’m not a fan of this icon, despite how prevalent it has become.
Before I go into why exactly, here is another app icon I came across:
These first three icons display specific language pairs, which could be interpreted as showing preference for a given language pair. This is the issue that I find problematic.
Why can’t a translate icon be language agnostic?
Here is how SDL approaches the translation icon:
Although the icon is busy, I’m partial to what SDL is doing here — as this icon does not display a given script pair.
Here is another icon, from the iTranslate app:
The counter-argument to a globe icon is this: It is used EVERYWHERE. And this is true. Facebook, for example, uses the globe icon for notifications, which I’ve never understood. Nevertheless, the globe icon can successfully deliver different messages depending on context. In the context of a mobile app icon, I think a globe icon works perfectly well.
So the larger question here is whether or not a language pair is required to communicate “translation.”
Google and Microsoft certainly believe that a language pair is required, which is where we stand right now. I’d love to see this change. I think we can do better.
Every translation vendor offers the highest-quality translations.
Or so they say.
But how do you know for sure that one translation is better than another translation?
And, for that matter, how do you fairly benchmark machine translation engines?
TAUS has worked on this challenge for the past three years along with a diverse network of translation vendors and buyers, including Intel, Adobe, Google, Lionbridge, and Moravia (among many others).
They’ve developed something they call the Dynamic Quality Framework (DQF) and they took it live earlier this month with a website, knowledgebase and evaluation tools.
To learn more, I recently interviewed TAUS founder and director Jaap van der Meer.
Q: Why is a translation quality framework needed?
In 2009 and 2010 we did a number of workshops with large enterprises with the objective to better understand the changing landscape for translation and localization services. As part of these sessions we always do a SWOT analysis and consistently quality assurance and translation quality popped up on the negative side of the charts: as weaknesses and threats. All the enterprises we worked with mentioned that the lack of clarity on translation quality led to disputes, delays and extra costs in the localization process. Our members asked us to investigate this area further and to assess the possibilities for establishing a translation quality framework.
Q: You have an impressive list of co-creators. It seems that you’ve really built up momentum for this service. Were there any key drivers for this wave of interest and involvement?
Well, on top of the fact that translation quality was already not well defined ever since there is a translation industry, the challenges in the last few years have become so much greater because of the emergence of new content types and the increasing interest in technology and translation automation.
Q: What if the source content is poorly written (full of grammatical errors, passive voice, run-on sentences). How does the DQF take this into account?
We work with a user group that meets every two months and reviews new user requirements. Assessing source content quality has come up as a concern of course and we are studying now how to take this into account in the Dynamic Quality Framework.
Q: Do you have any early success stories to share of how this framework has helped companies improve quality or efficiency?
We have a regular user base now of some 100 companies. They use DQF primarily to get an objective assessment of the quality of their MT systems. Before they worked with BLEU scores only, which is really not very helpful in a practical environment and not a real measurement for the usability of translations. Also many companies work with review comments from linguists which tend to be subjective and biased.
Q: How can other companies take part? Do they need to be TAUS members?
Next month (December) we will start making the DQF tools and knowledge bases available for non-members. Users will then be able to sign up for just one month (to try it out) or for a year without becoming members of TAUS.
Q: The DQF can be applied not only to the more structure content used in documentation and knowledgebases but also marketing content. How do you measure quality when content must be liberally transcreated into the target language? And what value does the DQF offer for this type of scenario?
We have deliberately chosen the name “Dynamic” Quality Framework, because of the many variables that determine how to evaluate the quality. The type of content is one of the key variables indeed. An important component of the Dynamic Quality Framework is an online wizard to profile the user’s content and to decide – based on that content profile – which evaluation technique and tool to use. For marketing text this will be very different than for instructions for use.
Q: Do you see DQF having an impact on the creation of source content as well?
Yes, even today the adequacy and fluency evaluation tools – that are part of DQF – could already be applied to source content. But as we proceed working with our user group to add features and improve the platform we will ‘dynamically’ evolve to become more effective for source content quality evaluation as well.
Q: An argument against quality benchmarks is that they can be used to suck the life (or art) out of text (both source and translated text). What would you say in response to this?
No, I don’t think so. You must realize that DQF is not a mathematical approach to assessing quality and only counting errors (as most professionals in the industry have been doing for the longest time now with the old LISA QA model or derivatives thereof). For a nice and lively marketing text the DQF content profiler will likely recommend a ‘community feedback’ type of evaluation.
Q: Where do you see the DQF five years from now in terms of functionality?
Our main focus is now on integration and reporting. Next year we will provide the APIs that allow users to integrate DQF in their own editors and localization workflows. This will make it so much easier for a much larger group of users to add DQF to their day-to-day production environment. In our current release we provide many different reports for users, but what we like to do next year is allow users to define their own reports and views of the data in a personalized dashboard.
I predicted that we’d see a lot more use of this word in the years ahead. Why? Because “translation sounds like a commodity; transcreation sounds like a service.”
So here we are in 2013 and a Google search on Transcreation brings up 392,000 results.
Translators often cringe when hearing this word. And I have often felt the urge to do the same because, frankly, good translators and translation agencies have been providing this service all along.
The idea that literal, word-for-word translation is the only service provided by translators is simply wrong, and to some extent propagated by a translation industry built upon stressing quality (as in literal translation) over more marketing-oriented translation.
So now we have a number of marketing firms and advertising agencies who use this term quite liberally to promote their unique brand of translation services. Here is a screen grab from the website of Hogarth:
By the way, Hogarth is looking to hire a Transcreation Account Manager to “manage the transcreation and production of advertising for major global brands.” Here is the link.