Skip to main content

Measuring the User Experience of Computer-Aided Translation Systems: A Comparative Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies

Abstract

Computer-aided translation (CAT) has become the mainstream mode of translation in the language industry. In the process of translation, the CAT systems’ irritating features often cause considerable cognitive friction on the part of translators. In this context, this study evaluates and compares, qualitatively and quantitatively, the user experience of four CAT systems, namely, SDL Trados Studio, memoQ, Snowman CAT, and YiCAT. Over 100 graduate students in translation from a Chinese university completed a battery of tasks. They then filled out a questionnaire, which included the standardised System Usability Scale, preferences for the four CAT systems based on key functions, and open-ended questions regarding each CAT system's weaknesses and strengths. The study seeks to raise CAT vendors’ awareness of UX and find out what usability problems translators have encountered. It has implications for CAT tool development, pedagogy as well as cognitive translation studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.gcys.cn.

  2. 2.

    Find Flashback at flashbackrecorder.com, Camtasia Studio at techsmith.com.

  3. 3.

    Even though the responses from 31 students were cleansed from the SUS rating scale data either for careless responding or for having not completed the tasks as required, these students’ open-ended responses concerning each of the CAT systems’ weaknesses and strengths were analyzed for two reasons: (1) There was a minimum word limit of 100 for the open-ended responses in the requirements; (2) Students who had not completed the tasks were expected to detail what problems they encountered in their responses, and this aligned with the purpose of this task. Hence, the number of informants in open-ended responses was 143.

  4. 4.

    Students usually got stuck when they were recording a software session for the first time, so they had to redo it (or hit pause). Many students made three attempts.

References

  • Alabau, Vicente et al. 2013. User Evaluation of Advanced Interaction Features for a Computer-Assisted Translation Workbench. Paper presented at the Machine Translation Summit XIV, Nice, France, 2–6 September.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangor, Aaron, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies 4 (3): 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, Michael. 2005. Testing without a map. Better Software 7 (1): 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, John. 1996. SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, eds. P. Jordan, B. Thomas, and B. Weerdmeester, 189–194. London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, Sin-wai. 2015. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen, and Sharon O’Brien. 2015. Ergonomics of the translation workplace: Potential for cognitive friction. Translation Spaces 4 (1): 98–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federico, Marcello, Alessandro Cattelan, and Marco Trombetti. 2012. Measuring user productivity in machine translation enhanced computer assisted translation. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas. Madison, WI: AMTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, Ignacio. 2015. Computer-aided translation systems. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology, ed. Sin-wai Chan, 68–87. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, Marc, and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. User experience—a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25 (2): 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk, Kasper, and Effie Lai-Chong Law. 2007. Meta-Analysis of Correlations Among Usability Measures. In CHI ‘07 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose, CA: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. 2018. ISO 9241–11:2018 Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Geneva: ISO Copyright Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, John. 2008. Anonymity. In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, ed. Paul J. Lavrakas, 27–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagoudaki, Elina. 2009. Translation Editing Environments. In MT Summit XII: Workshop on Beyond Translation Memories, ed. Laurie Gerber. Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagoudaki, Pelagia Maria. 2008. Expanding the Possibilities of Translation Memory Systems: From the Translator’s Wishlist to the Developer’s Design. PhD dissertation, Imperial College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalmas, Mounia, Heather O’Brien, and Elad Yom-Tov. 2015. Measuring User Engagement. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Läubli, Samuel, and Spence Green. 2020. Translation technology research and human–computer interaction (HCI). In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Technology, ed. Minako O’Hagan, 370–383. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, James R., and Jeff Sauro. 2009. The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale. In Human Centered Design. HCD 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5619. , ed. M. Kurosu, 94–103. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacPhail, Catherine, Nomhle Khoza, Laurie Abler, and Meghna Ranganathan. 2016. Process guidelines for establishing Intercoder Reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research 16 (2): 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, Adam W., and S. Bartholomew Craig. 2012. Identifying Careless Responses in Survey Data. Psychological Methods 17 (3): 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellinger, Christopher. 2014. Computer-Assisted Translation: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Effort. PhD Thesis, Kent State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell-Schuitevoerder, Rosemary. 2020. A Project- Based Approach to Translation Technology. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorkens, Joss, and Sharon O'Brien. 2013. User Attitudes to the Post-Editing Interface. Paper presented at the Proceedings of MT Summit XIV Workshop on Post-editing Technology and Practice, Nice, France, September 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 2017. Looking Toward the Future of Cognitive Translation Studies. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, eds. John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 555–572. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, Glenford, Corey Sandler, and Tom Badgett. 2012. The art of software testing, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, Jakob. 2012. Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

  • O’Brien, Sharon, Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow, Marcel Hasler, and Megan Connolly. 2017. Irritating CAT Tool Features that Matter to Translators. Hermes 56: 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • OED. 2003. Muse. In The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paz, Freddy, and José Antonio. Pow-Sang. 2016. A Systematic Mapping Review of Usability Evaluation Methods for Software Development Process. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications 10 (1): 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielmeier, Hélène. 2019. AI: More Than a Buzzword in the Language Services industry? https://csa-research.com/Insights/ArticleID/520/artificial-intelligence-in-language-service-industry. Accessed 3 August 2020.

  • Pielmeier, Hélène, and Alison Toon. 2019. Translation Memory Use at LSPs. Burlington, MA: CSA Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quesenbery, Whitney. 2003. The Five Dimensions of Usability. In Content and Complexity: Information Design in Technical Communication, eds. Michael J. Albers and Beth Mazur, 81–102. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risku, Hanna, and Regina Rogl. 2021. Translation and situated, embodied, distributed, embedded and extended cognition. In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Cognition, eds. Fabio Alves, and Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, 478–499. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röbig, Sinja, Muriel Didier, and Ralph Bruder. 2011. Ergonomics and Usability in an International Context. In Human Factors and Ergonomics in Consumer Product Design: Uses and Applications, eds. Waldemar Karwowski, Marcelo M. Soares, and Neville A. Stanton, 213–225. London: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Jeff, and Dana Chisnell. 2008. Handbook of Usability Testing, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusu, Cristian, Virginica Rusu, Silvana Roncagliolo, and Carina González. 2015. Usability and User Experience: What Should We Care About? International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach 8 (2): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, Jeff, and James R. Lewis. 2016. Quantifying the User Experience, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, Ben. 2002. Leonardo’s laptop: Human needs and the new computing technologies. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsen, Jakob Grue. 2018. User Experience. In The Wiley Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, eds. Kent L. Norman, and Jurek Kirakowski, 193–206. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tractinsky, Noam. 1997. Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Paper presented at the CHI 97: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, 22–27 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullis, Tom, and Bill Albert. 2013. Measuring the User Experience, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • UXPA. 2019. What is UXPA? https://www.uxpadc.org/about-us/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

  • Wang, Huashu. 2017. Fanyi jishu jiaocheng (A practical course in translation technology). Shanghai: Commercial Press & Shanghai Foreign Audiovisual Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaretskaya, Anna. 2017. Translators’ Requirements for Translation Technologies: User Study on Translation Tools. PhD Thesis, University of Malaga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Yubin, and Xiaoqian Chen. 2013. Guoneiwai si zhong changjian jisuanji fuzhu fanyi ruanjian bijiao yanjiu (A comparative evaluation of four computer-aided translation systems). Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education 1: 69–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Dr. Chengzhi Zhang, Mr. Jiajun Qian and the two anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier versions of the manuscript and my students and colleagues for their time and help.

Funding

This work was supported by Beijing Social Science Foundation (grant number 16YYB017), National Social Science Fund of China (grant number 19BYY115), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number 2020JS001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjun Sun .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: The System Usability Scale (SUS)

(Notes: 1. A Chinese translation of SUS by this author was provided to facilitate the students’ understanding; 2. See Fig. 1 for the specific 5-point Likert scale format adopted in this survey.)

  1. 1.

    I think that I would like to use this system frequently [我愿意经常使用这款软件].

  2. 2.

    I found the system unnecessarily complex [我觉得该软件过于复杂].

  3. 3.

    I thought the system was easy to use [我认为该软件易于使用].

  4. 4.

    I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system [我想我需要技术人员的支持才能使用该软件].

  5. 5.

    I found the various functions in this system were well integrated [我发现该软件的各种功能都很好地集成在一起].

  6. 6.

    I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system [我认为该软件在程序设计、界面外观、帮助文档等方面有太多前后矛盾之处].

  7. 7.

    I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly [我想大多数人会很快学会使用该软件].

  8. 8.

    I found the system very cumbersome to use [我发现该软件使用起来非常麻烦].

  9. 9.

    I felt very confident using the system [我对使用该软件感到非常有信心].

  10. 10.

    I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system [在使用该软件之前, 我需要学习很多东西].

Appendix 2: Test Tasks to Be Completed Using Each of the Four CAT Systems

(Note: The task description was originally in Chinese. This is a generic version; in the actual test, one customised task description with cheat-sheet reminders was provided for each CAT system.)

  1. 1.

    Create a new project, choose SourceText_English.docx, and create a new translation memory (TM) and termbase.

  2. 2.

    Align alignment_Chinese.docx and alignment_English.docx, and export the aligned pairs into the TM.

  3. 3.

    Pre-translate the source text (ST).

  4. 4.

    Translate the ST sentence by sentence in the Editor view by copying the translation from the provided reference target text, confirm the segments, add the three terms—"Lao Dao”, “Peng Li”, and “chow mein"—to the termbase, then perform a concordance search for “jujubes” and add its translation to the termbase.

  5. 5.

    Review the translation, perform quality assurance, and make sure the translation progress is 100%.

  6. 6.

    Open the TM and replace all the instances of the translation (“老刀”) of “Lao Dao” with “老道”.

  7. 7.

    Export the target text and the translation memory (in .tmx format).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sun, S. (2021). Measuring the User Experience of Computer-Aided Translation Systems: A Comparative Study. In: Muñoz Martín, R., Sun, S., Li, D. (eds) Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2070-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics