One of the biggest problems I have when planning the localisation of the documents that I receive is the issue of embedded text in graphics.

Embedded text is more expensive to deal with than using numbered callouts in a graphic. However, writers aren’t always keen on using numbered callouts with graphics as they feel they can make the graphics harder to read. So there can be a challenge between meeting localisation budget demands and producing documentation with easy to use graphics.

There is probably a cultural element here, too, as European readers may be more used to seeing numbered callouts used in documents than perhaps North American readers due to the number of languages that must be catered for in Europe.

But with careful planning, graphics can still be both cost and visually effective.

The cost implications

Localizing embedded text in graphics is expensive and time-consuming. Let’s say you have a graphic in Adobe Illustrator with some text embedded in it and you need it in 10 languages. Each language will be placed in a separate layer in the graphic file. To do each translated version of the graphic takes around 15 minutes per language. That’s 2.5 hours. For one graphic. The translation agency charges, say, 30 euros an hour for such work (this doesn’t include the actual translation which is a small cost).

This single graphic has cost 75 euros to put into 10 languages. If your document has, say, 10 graphics requiring similar work, you’ve spent 750 euros getting these 10 graphics into the required 10 languages. It’s taken 25 hours to localise the graphics in one document, around three working days.

It would cost much more, and take more time, if the graphics are jpegs with bitmapped text.

Using numbered callouts in the graphic with the associated text included in a legend underneath means that the text can be easily translated using translation memory tools along with the documentation. This improves consistency and reduces cost. And there’s no cost to modify graphics.

If you send dozens of documents a year for translation to an agency, the cost of translating embedded text in graphics quickly accumulates. Management may start asking why it’s spending such sums which could be reduced or avoided. We need to ensure that we’re using our localisation budgets wisely and diligently. The money spent dealing with embedded text could perhaps instead be used, for example, in releasing documentation in further languages for new markets.

Make room for the text

Translated text takes up more space than English, the usual source language. And the impact of text expansion is much more pronounced with short blocks of text, such as text callouts, than with long paragraphs. Leave room in the English document and graphic for the text to expand once translated.

Sometimes when working in Word, a writer may place text boxes on graphics to avoid using numbered callouts. This is not recommended. Translation memory tools can’t access text inside a text box. It must be manually extracted for translation, introducing a risk of error and inconsistency. There is also the risk that when a text box is placed on a graphic, the translated text may then hide much of the graphic due to expansion.

It’s also important to tell the translation agency which terms in a graphic-associated text are not to be translated. Some embedded text such as measurements, product names and text embossed on to the product itself can stay in English and needs no rework.

Screen shots

Ideally translated documents should have their screen shots in the local language. However, it’s expensive and time consuming to get all the screen shoots in the required languages.

Best practices

Try to limit the number of graphics that require localization in order to facilitate the localization process and help control costs. Before sending your documents to a translation agency for a quote, check the graphics for any potential localisation issues and either fix them in the English source file to avoid incurring extra costs or tell the agency what you expect them to do to the graphics and pay.

Use numbered callouts: Use numbered callouts with a legend underneath rather than embed text in your graphics. The text associated with a graphic is then translated as part of the main text of the manual. Numbered callouts are particularly cost effective when you are doing several languages.

Plan for text expansion: Plan for translated text to occupy 100% more space than the English. Leave plenty of white space around text callouts (if not using numbered callouts) and callout lines in the graphics.

Screen shots: Limit their use. If you are not translating the screen shots in a manual, tell the translation agency how to handle the English GUI text that appears in the main body of the manual. It helps users to have the GUI text translated so an effective way to do so in this situation is to include the translated GUI text in parenthesis alongside the English GUI text.

Even if you only produce documentation in a single language and don’t deal with an international audience, using consistent terminology matters.

SDL recently released the results of a terminology survey that they conducted earlier this year. The study is an interesting review on the trends and opinions on the subject of terminology management.

They asked two groups about terminology management: a business audience and translators.

When asked what they considered to be the most important impact of inconsistent terminology, the business audience replied the quality of the content, internal communication and customer satisfaction. Inconsistent terminology also impacts the cost of translation and branding.

Three departments are largely responsible for owning the terminology in a company: Technical Publications, Translation/Localisation, and Marketing. They’re responsible for the management, maintenance and approval of terminology.

The most common internal process they used for managing terminology were style guides and spreadsheets to store terms. Over 35% of the business respondents said that they keep their terminology in a style guide. However, only 50% shared their terminology lists with other departments in the company.

This lack of sharing with other departments obviously increases the risk that departments could be using different terms for the same meaning. And yet, as so many departments in a company use common terminology—not just technical publications and marketing—it’s a lost opportunity not to collaborate in sharing terminology to ensure consistency.

All parties taking part in the survey agreed that the problems related to inconsistent terminology start with the source documentation. Indeed 40% of translators said that they frequently encountered inconsistent terminology.
The translators said that the main impact of inconsistent terminology is on translation quality, style and consistency, client satisfaction and their productivity. These are the parameters often used to measure a translator’s success and performance. We can conclude from this that consistent terminology makes the translator’s work much easier as well as improving quality.

An interesting point shown in the survey is how few companies take responsibility for their terminology in the localization stage. The translators said that only 15% of clients drove terminology management. Terminology management just isn’t part of the localization strategy of many companies (they do have a localisation content strategy, right?). Indeed it’s more likely that the translator takes ownership of terminology than the company that created the source documentation being translated. We put all that effort in creating a document and then practically abandon control over it when it moves to another language.

An example: Same meaning, different terms

Over the years my company has been through various acquisitions and mergers. Being a global company, content is also created across the globe by different groups. The content is often then reused in different documents. All this has provided many opportunities for inconsistency in our terminology. For example, the following six terms have all appeared in our product datasheets.

• Operating temperature
• Temperature range
• Temperature
• Working temperature
• Operating temperature range
• Ambient temperature range

Unfortunately these terms all describe the same feature: the operating temperature of a product.

The datasheets were subsequently translated into multiple languages. The inconsistency in the English source terminology has bred inconsistency across the other languages—a domino effect. We’ve found that, for example, we have four different ways to say “operating temperature” in French and three different ways in Spanish (I gave up counting for the other languages). This inconsistency with just one term illustrates the widespread impact that poor terminology management can have across multiple documents and languages.

SDL’s survey clearly showed that terminology needs to be managed during the whole content life cycle, from the moment we decide a source document is needed through to the localisation of the content.

When selling products in Europe, how do we decide into which languages we should translate our user documentation? This is a potentially expensive, yet important, question.

In an ideal world, we would translate the documentation into the language of every country in which we sell our products. However, not only could this be prohibitively expensive, it might also be a waste of money and time. Not all products or audiences may require a translated user manual. Yet by not providing the documentation in a language of a country, we might be breaking that country’s laws. In this era of tight budgets and deadlines, it’s important to know how to select which languages are required for our markets.

When planning the localisation requirements of our documentation, we should consider the following criteria:

1. Legally required languages
2. Legally recommended languages
3. Commercial decision

Always seek the advice of the company’s legal department to get guidelines specific for your products and markets.

Legally required

What we’re selling will play a deciding role in determining which languages are provided to customers. Medical and life safety products, such as fire alarm systems, have much more demanding legal requirements for translation than products with no such impact. As a life safety product even if we sell only one smoke detector in Iceland, for example, we’d have to translate the user instructions into Icelandic.

And the law doesn’t stay still. Recently, the European Union directive for medical devices was updated, requiring software to be now translated. A useful article for information on the legal aspects of localisation is Who is afraid of clinical data requirements?

Regulatory information often must be translated. For some European Union (EU) directives, the information provided to end users must translated into the official EU languages. Examples of such directives are those for WEEE and battery disposal. So some regulatory information may need to be provided to users in more languages than the user manual itself. For more information on regulatory issues across many sectors in the European Union, go to the European Commission’s industry sectors overview.

Several European countries legally require user documentation for any product to be translated into the local language. If selling products in France or Germany, we must translate the software and instructions for use into the local language. The instructions for use can be in print or digital format (for example, PDF, Web, Help…) Further information on the French law can be found in this article about Toubon Law.

Russian and Ukrainian laws insist that the end user and installation documentation be translated into Russian for products to be legally sold in these countries.

And we also need to be aware if our company has any contractual agreements with customers to provide the product documentation in selected languages.

Legally recommended

Unfortunately, sometimes there can be grey areas surrounding translation requirements for some countries. In such situations, seek the advice from the legal department. Although a country may not legally require the user documentation to be translated, if that country’s market is commercially important to a company, the legal department may decide that user documentation must be translated.

Commercial decision

In this situation, languages are selected for purely for commercial reasons. Product managers select the languages required for software and documentation depending on market demands.

We need to know the impact of legal requirements when planning the localisation of documentation. Work closely with the product managers and legal department when selecting the languages required. And develop written guidelines to help all parties in the company know what legal requirements the software and technical documentation must meet in the international marketplace.

We often hear about the advantages of being fluent in a second language such as when visiting a foreign country on holiday. It’s easier to eat, drink and be merry when you can speak with those around you. But what about the professional advantages?

I’ve been reading a few blogs and newspaper articles recently that discuss multilingualism.

• The Language Bridge
• Web pages for the EU Commissioner for Multilingualism
• Column in the Guardian about British linguistic skills

They have made me think about our profession, technical communication, and how it connects with other languages and cultures. We now work in a global marketplace and increasingly are involved with planning, writing, and distributing documentation that cross linguistic and cultural borders. Although most of us work and write in English, does it help us professionally as technical writers to be fluent in other languages? Are employers interested in such a skill?

If you’re based in Europe having another language certainly gives you more freedom to move between countries for work, particularly if you hold an EU passport. Fluency helps us deal with the various bureaucracies that invariably arrive when living in a different country. We become more aware of the diversity of life and can take part in it. We can speak with colleagues in their language. I’m fluent in French so can communicate with my colleagues in France, Belgium and Switzerland in their language, which they appreciate. Communication becomes more shared.

English today is the global linga franca. As a result many English speakers unfortunately don’t see the point in learning another language. Are many of the professional advantages of having a second language only apparent when you are the foreigner rather than the language? My last two jobs both preferred candidates to have a second language as well as good English. Admittedly both were in French-speaking countries.

Yet I think having another language is useful professionally even if you’re not based in a foreign country. We know what it’s like to read technical documents in a second language. Although such fluency isn’t a requirement when writing for a global market, it can help us to be more aware of the consequences of writing clear, concise, and direct information that is easy to translate as well as understood by those reading in their second language.

The practicalities of localisation can become more “alive”. Simply reading documents in other languages can help us appreciate the impact of such issues as text expansion due to translation (particularly around graphics) and inconsistent terminology. In some of my company’s datasheets I discovered that we had six different ways of writing “operating temperature” in English, which translated into four different ways in French and three in Spanish. Ouch!

If you’re fluent in more than one language, what advantages has it brought you professionally in your work as a technical communicator?