Simplified English

[white_bars]

С месяц назад мне на глаза попалась презентация Controlled English / Simplified English Бэрри Брастера (Berry Braster), которая впечатления не произвела, но запомнилась. Бэрри – директор американского отделения фирмы Tedopres, которая, собственно, и пытается продавать свои услуги в области Controlled Language (www.controlledenglish.com). Из презентации не очень понятно, как они продают себя клиентам, но в январском выпуске Multilingual выйдет его статья (под катом), которая кое-что объясняет. Основные пункты “продажи” выглядят примерно так: контролируемый язык дает

- улучшение “читабельности”
- уменьшение объема исходного текста на 15%
- увеличение процента утилизации при использовании Translation Memory на 10%
- как следствие – общее снижение стоимости локализации на 27%

Достигается это все типа за три простых шага: создание “словаря”, обучение персонала и использование спецсофта. Статья тоже оставляет много вопросов, на что, видимо, и расчет: если, например, кто-нибудь захочет узнать, а какой софт-то нужно использовать, то придется обращаться к Tedopres, а уж они своего шанса не упустят.

Ясно, что 27% экономии – это невсосуемо огромная цифра; клиенты убивают вендоров за 5%, а тут – просто клад, а народ мимо ходит. Что-то тут не то. Я, разумеется, полез все это проверять, кое-что накопал и сделал для себя выводы. Выводы разные. Главный: если вы не понимаете, что, зачем и как нужно делать, то лучше туда и не лезть. Люди, пишушие документацию, ненавидят, когда им указывают, как нужно писать. Люди, читающие документацию, ненавидят, когда им пишут в приказном тоне. Составление словаря для документации менее 100-150 тысяч слов “сожрет” всю экономию от снижения стоимости локализации. Те, у кого есть специализированный софт (Lionbridge, например), его не продают, а разработка и сопровождение такого рода софта – это еще те деньги. Внедрение системы может закончиться неудачей (как у Hewlett Packard). А экономия в конце может оказаться копеечной. И так далее.

Но что-то в этом есть: что-то меня мучает... Пока что не пойму, что :) 
В общем – читайте статью: может, чего навеет полезного :)

Controlled language in technical writing

Berry Braster

 

The documentation used in manuals and other technical writing worldwide is predominantly created in English. Though much discussion has been devoted to it in academia and elsewhere for years, technical English continues to be written in a way that is difficult for many people to understand.

The following directions, for instance, are actual samples culled from two different user manuals:

"Gain access to blade and replace: after removing old blade, blade may be fitted by proceeding in reverse order, using gloves to avoid injuries by teeth of blade. Before you attempt any of the above, the power should have been switched off.”

"Clean the turret dome chassis thermal window securing screw threaded holes and the thermal window 14 securing screws of all previously used sealant using solvent.”

In another example, purportedly an airplane once had to abort landing after the pilots realized there was a vehicle on the runway. The vehicle was a snowplow whose operator had been told by the tower "to clear the runway” for the arrival of the aircraft.

These examples identify a problem that has been around for quite a while, but in today’s world where products are becoming more complex and are increasingly used around the globe, a solution is needed more than ever.

One conclusion is that people can easily be confused by the multiple meanings and synonyms that words have, as well as by complex sentence structures. But if we look closer at the users of technical information, we can also conclude that in today’s world of globalization, our audience has changed and we need to learn to adapt.

English is the main language used for technical documentation, though we are often required to provide the documentation in the native language of the countries to which we export. But if the English is complex and ambiguous, we can’t expect the translations to be perfect either. They are bound to contain errors, ambiguity and misinterpretations due to the issues in the original.

Therefore, in order to avoid confused and frustrated consumers, but more importantly to avoid the risk of dangerous situations, damage and sometimes even product liability claims, we need to provide our audiences with information in their language at their educational level, using unambiguous terminology that they will understand. To do so, a company needs to standardize its general vocabulary as well as its terminology. Many words that were used in the past will thus fall out of use. To help writers find the right words, approved words can be linked as synonyms to non-approved words. In addition, writers should avoid the use of ambiguous words, use short and simple sentences, and give information that is precise and in a logical order, allowing readers to understand well enough to be responsible for (heir actions concerning written directions. Following these rules, the first example in this article could become:

“Make sure that the on/off switch is in the OFF position.

Remove the blade cover from the machine.

Warning: wear gloves when you touch the blade.

Remove the old blade.

Install the new blade.

Install the blade cover.”

This re-write contains consistent terminology with only one thought per sentence and with clear instructions. First of all, this ensures that the source is clear and therefore easy to understand. As a result, the translation memory used with it will be filled with unambiguous content, thus resulting in better, faster and cheaper translations. Finally, your help desk will receive fewer calls, your product’s time-to-market will decrease and customer service will improve.

 

Controlled authoring

Controlled language (CL) helps facilitate today’s business imperatives. As authoring environments change to structured XML and content management, it would only make sense to also adapt controlled terminology and good writing practices to further improve re-usability and create additional cost savings.

Doing so will not only standardize the content, it will standardize content management (CM) in general, create efficiency, and further increase the benefits CM already offers. Re-usability is the key word here, which applies both to the English content as well as to the translations. The re-use of words and sentences can reduce content by up to 30% and at the same time save translation costs by up to 40% per language. Apart from translations, clear and unambiguous communication helps you and your customers save costs in creating and using your documentation. Most importantly, your customers will understand what they are reading, which is a further enhancement to your product.

 

Translation cost savings

The example in Table I shows cost savings obtained for a user manual of about 300 pages containing approximately 54,000 words. Based on this example, the savings are:

For 1 manual, 1 language: $1,980

For 1 manual, 4 languages: $7,920

For 1 manual, 12 languages: $23,760

For 4 manuals, 4 languages: $31,680

For 4 manuals, 12 languages: $95,040

Typically, the use of CL will result in a word count reduction of about 15%. This means that only 45,900 words will have to be translated, instead of the original 54,000.

 

Source Text	Without CL	With CL	Difference
Words to be translated	54,000	45,900	-15%
Translation memory finds (perfect matches)	30%	40%	+10%
Words to be translated manually	37,800	27,540	-27%
Translation costs (approx. $0.20 per word)	$7,560	$5,580	-27%

  

Simplified Technical English

Guidelines and corporate style guides are available when you decide to implement a CL for your technical publications. The Simplified Technical English (STE) specification was initially designed to create clear and understandable technical English in the aerospace and military industries (the specification is called ASD-STE 100), especially for nonnative speakers. It is based on two principles: restricted grammar roles and a controlled dictionary listing the words writers can and cannot use.

STE has developed into an industry-wide standard, and due to its success, structured authoring standards such as S1000D (www.s1000d.org) call for the use of STE. Organizations using DITA have also found that it makes content more re-usable. Software, automotive, telecommunication, medical and semiconductor industries also tend to implement the use of a CL for their technical publications, and because STE is derived from an aerospace and defense standard, it is strict by nature. The official guidelines contain 57 writing roles and a limited vocabulary of approximately 900 approved words and approximately 2,000 non-approved words with assigned synonyms. This is good news for companies outside the aerospace and defense industries because they can use a well-maintained standard and will not have to reinvent the wheel. Instead, they can be more flexible and adapt STE according to their requirements.

 

How to implement STE

To implement the use of STE. you should develop a dictionary, train technical writers, and use some kind of checker software.

1. Developing a dictionary

To standardize the general vocabulary used in your technical publications, you must eliminate different technical terms that have the same meaning. This will result in a dictionary that contains approved words and unapproved synonyms.

To determine which term to approve, identify which one has the least ambiguous meaning and is considered most understandable by your audience. Normalizing terminology in this way will remove ambiguity from your organization’s vocabulary.

Creating a dictionary usually takes about a month. First, extract technical terms from your full documentation set, and subject these terms to linguistic analysis (removing ambiguous terms) and statistical analysis (identifying terms that are used most). This usually results in a dictionary of 2,000-3,000 technical terms to supplement the core STE dictionary of 900 approved words and 2,000 unapproved synonyms. There is also the option to modify the original dictionary to suit your sector. Software companies often need some measure of flexibility from CL, for instance. The users of their documentation have become familiar with a wide range of computer-specific terms, including click and select. The idea, of course, is to get consensus on which word to use, with the ultimate goal that we should pick the word that seems the least ambiguous to the end user, with approved words having only one meaning.

For example, STE requires you to use the word follow to mean ‘to come after,” as in "obey the instructions that follow.” However, if the user would expect follow to mean "to do," as in "follow the instructions,” you can specify this meaning instead. Of course, you can no longer use the word to mean anything else. Again, you can be flexible as long as you stick to the philosophy of controlled authoring: one word can only have one meaning.

 

2. Training

Technical writers, engineers and editors need training to write in STE. Two-day training courses are typical.

 

3. Using checker software

A checker tool is necessary to help writers and editors check text for compliance with the rules of STE. Violations are easily overlooked. In addition, checker tools can take away many of the mechanical aspects of checking and facilitate quality assurance on technical content.

 

Conclusion

CL is a long-term and comprehensive initiative designed to standardize the way technical publications are written. It facilitates document structuring by specifications such as DITA and SI000D in a reliable, cost-effective and efficient way, and facilitates CM through optimum re-usability. Having the content clear, concise and consistent will further enhance the benefits you get from structured authoring, XML and CM.

In addition, the use of CL can help you save translation costs of up to 40% per language. Cheaper translations are one reason, but avoiding costs as a result of clear and unambiguous communication to your customers can be tremendous. However, it is the overall result that often convinces companies to switch to CL: readers understand what they are reading.