Getting your Documentation Ready for Localization
Have you had to prepare your documentation for localization yet? My experience is that in almost all companies, writers have far too many other oppressive concerns gnawing at them to think about writing for localization.
A few days ago an industry colleague sent me a message asking, "Do you have experience making recommendations for how documentation can be authored for localization? I am looking to make our doc process more efficient to reduce costs."
I replied that, given his stature and tenure in the industry, there was not likely anything I could suggest that he hadn't already considered. Nevertheless, I sent him a list of ideas, in increasing order of difficulty:
If you liked this post, have a look at Getting Writers to Care about Localized Documents.
A few days ago an industry colleague sent me a message asking, "Do you have experience making recommendations for how documentation can be authored for localization? I am looking to make our doc process more efficient to reduce costs."
I replied that, given his stature and tenure in the industry, there was not likely anything I could suggest that he hadn't already considered. Nevertheless, I sent him a list of ideas, in increasing order of difficulty:
- Make sure all the writers' computers are plugged in. (A bit of ironic humor I could not resist.)
- Is it easy to get from the authoring tool(s) into TM, and back out into publishable format? This is my current headache with an API reference manual we localize for one client, because moving from source language to the translator tools and back to target format is a colossal headache. If you have similar problems, devote some cycles at the format-layer, even if it means writing an interface between your content management system and the translation tool.
- There are "authoring memory" tools that can suggest and re-use already-xlated source text, so that writers don't say nearly the same thing multiple times and incur unnecessary TM penalties. Sajan has one, and SDLX contains one as well. I've never used either one, but I can imagine that success with the tools would require somebody with the documentation-familiarity of a technical writer and the global consciousness of a localization manager. Like you.
- I've presented on localization to a variety of audiences, and have consistently found tech writers to be the most interested in it, vastly more so than developers. When you show writers how the TM tools work, tell them how they can save money and re-use content, and let them know that you care about the impact of their work on international products, they will smell the coffee and engage. This takes a bit of evangelism, but it's worth it if the writers change their own practices.
- Convert everything to XML. Although Renato and Don of Common Sense Advisory joke that that will fix any L10n problem, it's nonetheless a good, long-term direction in which to move. It's easier to re-use text, and easier to mark text that should/should not be translated. That will save you money.
- Start a program of controlled language authoring (dumbing down the sentences, always writing in a structure that machine translation will recognize, etc.). I guess that GM and Caterpillar are poster children for this kind of thing, but it puts the writers (and you, in the bargain) through the change of life, which is why I mention it last.
If you liked this post, have a look at Getting Writers to Care about Localized Documents.
Labels: documentation internationalization, documentation localization, machine translation, technical writers, writing for localization