8 Replies Latest reply on May 28, 2013 3:46 AM by camem_bert

    IDML best for proofreading work process?

    camem_bert

      Hello All,

       

      I'm a translator and proofreader and right now working on a German-French Magazine centered on politics and economy.

      The way proofreading was done up to now was manual: the layout people sent pdfs to proofreaders, they made comments/corrections, these were manually entered by the layouters. Time-consuming and source of errors.

       

      I'm thinking of using the IDML format for a quicker workflow. The layouters could export the texts as IDML-files, the proofreaders would directly correct the texts, the layouters would only have to readjust the texts.

       

      But maybe there are better ways? I'm curious to hear your comments and suggestions! Especially regarding, InCopy, which I know only by name.

       

      Regards,

      camembert

        • 1. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
          Joel Cherney Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          When you say "the proofreaders would directly correct the texts," do you mean "the proofreaders would open up the IDML in their translation tool of choice?" Because personally I'd rather eat glass than work on IDML directly in TagEditor. But then again, I hate TagEditor. And I have very few translators whom I'd trust with any tool that directly exposed the IDML markup. It'd work better in SDL 2011 or memoQ, or something similar, but these tools have very little market-share in my segment.

           

          InCopy is the best tool for this job, assuming that the prooferaders are technically competent and need to be looking at the layout while they correct the text. Our translation providers are mostly not willing to work in InCopy, so I run a wide variety of InDesign -> Word -> InDesign workflows. Each of these workflows has its own idiosyncracies, which I'd be willing to detail, but if you don't have a bunch of balky providers who will only work in Word, you probably don't need this option.

           

          There are other similar tools that allow textual contributors to work on a story without interfering with the work done at layout - Rorohiko's StoryTweaker is one, and I'm working on setting up our translation office with WordsFlow and/or DocsFlow. I would suggest that you look at StoryTweaker and InCopy first, because it sounds like one of those two would be best suited to your environment, depending on how much you wanted to spend, how willing your proofreaders are to learn to use a new application, and other such concerns.

          • 2. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
            camem_bert Level 1

            hi joel,

             

            thanks for your quick reply. I've looked at storytweaker and it looks just like what i was looking for. I'd like to look into incopy as well but before doing so, could you tell me what kind of money it costs? thanks!

             

            about the idml-solution: no the proofreaders/translators would work in their own cat tool whatever it is, and if they are masochists they could use tag editor of course. but nobody i know does so willingly

             

            regards,

            adrian

            • 3. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
              camem_bert Level 1

              Hi Joel,

               

              thanks again for your suggestion. There seems to be a little problem with storytweaker and I'd like to know if you could tell the InDesign => Word => InDesign routine in case the issue can't be solved before the job starts end of this week.

               

              Thanks very much!

               

              Regards,

              Adrian

              • 4. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
                Joel Cherney Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                Um. Lots of options, here, depending on your workflow, the structure of the InDesign document, and the technical aptitude of the translators. If each story in the magazine is really a single story in InDesign, and the styling is absolutely perfect with no overrides, and no style is Based On any other style, and your translators understand how to respect character & paragraph styles in Word (or use TM tools that do so) you simply export the story to RTF. Let the proofreaders have at it, then reimport their RTFs when you're done and clear all overrides.

                 

                Notice all the caveats?

                 

                You can export the whole InDesign document to IDML, but not individual bits. That's one fairly large problem with basing your review workflow on IDML. You can export & re-import InDesign Tagged Text story-by-story as described above without all of the caveats, assuming your translators have tools & skills that can handle tagged text.

                 

                If your magazine stories aren't actual stories-that-flow-from-frame-to-frame-in-ID then I don't think that any of the above will work for you. If your content isn't styled within an inch of its life with no overrides, then I don't think that I will have very much to suggest for you, except maybe going the tagged-text route. It's the method I've used with the least post-reimport-cleanup (because only technically apt translators who use tools that respect such tagged text formats can work on projects that require them to work directly in InDesign Tagged Text).

                • 5. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
                  camem_bert Level 1

                  thanks for the quick reply.

                   

                  I'd love to base the workflow on an adequate tool, but as said there are difficulties with storytweaker. We've made a couple of tests and some text boxes are not open to modifications, sometimes the document won't open, Storytweaker crashing before the doc can be read.

                   

                  I guess the reason is we are not yet familiar with ST and have not set the parameters right. I hope it can be solved.

                   

                  Are you saying that if the stories in the magazine are each in one text box, you can export them one in an rtf document? Providing the proofreaders don't change anything with the styles or formatting, that would be the least problematic procedure for the layouter without a clever tool like Storytweaker or Incopy?

                   

                  Kind regards,

                  Adrian

                  • 6. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
                    Joel Cherney Adobe Community Professional & MVP

                    Providing the proofreaders don't change anything with the styles or formatting, that would be the least problematic procedure for the layouter without a clever tool like Storytweaker or Incopy?

                    The answer to that question is a simple "no."

                     

                    But let me go into some more detail:

                    Are you saying that if the stories in the magazine are each in one text box, you can export them one in an rtf document?

                    If the stories in the magazine are in a single text flow - either a single text frame, or a series of threaded frames - then you can export a single RTF. But if you need this workflow to work when you flow RTFs back in, start testing it now! Because there are always hitches when trying to get Adobe and Microsoft products to play nice with one another.  E.g. is there a style in InDesign that shares a name with a built-in style in Word? That will cause problems, and you won't be able to simply place the RTF and have it look like it did when you exported it. There are many such problems when running text out of ID, into Word, and then back into ID after editing. There are dozens of potential hitches here. Far fewer than with StoryTweaker, in my experience. I can't review them all for you - they are dependent, as I said before, on the structure of the InDesign file, et cetera.

                     

                    (I forgot to mention that the way that your proofreaders' normal.dot is set up will also influence whether or not you can reliably re-import RTFs without major work at re-import. You know, whether or not they have styles that automatically update.)

                    • 7. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
                      sunjan

                      Hi guys,

                       

                      Sorry for jumping in late.

                      The suggestíons mentioned sound very cumbersome and error prone.
                      Our company developed an online tool (SaaS), especially for this purpose:

                      http://wealledit.com/

                       

                      You upload the Indesign file (there is a depository for fonts etc), and do all edits in your browser.
                      No visible tags, all formats and overrides are protected. Nothing that can break.

                      All edits are saved in a changelog.

                      Edits are timestamped with username, and can be reverted if the editor doesn't approve.

                       

                      We also have another interface for bilingual proofreading of indesign files:

                      http://www.languagewire.co.uk/en/translation-software/modules/agito-translate

                       

                      In this view, the translator/proofreader will see a text-only table view for translating and editing, very similar to Trados Studio. Tags are protected, and at any time the user can create a draft PDF to check text overflow etc.

                      Both tools are available on a subscription basis, or per assignment.

                       

                      Drop me a PM for more information.

                       

                      /Jan Sundström

                      • 8. Re: IDML best for proofreading work process?
                        camem_bert Level 1

                        Hi Jan,

                         

                        thanks for your suggestion, but the pricing of your product is quite high for small to medium publications.

                         

                        In the project I'm working on, a monthly magazine with 60.000 copies in France and Germany focusing on business, politics, culture your page-by-page pricing would double the budget for proofreading, the flat fee would add 50% costs. The magazine needs it only once a month for 6 hours at most. Who would pay for  a month somehting he needs only a day? With your fees, you cut out a lot of potential customers that would be very interested in the product.

                         

                        Apart from that the product seems highly interesting, but as said, I think your price is more for translations agencies (heavy users) than for publishers.

                         

                        Would you  consider introducing a price by circulation/size of the of the publication, or by type of client (agency, publication, organization etc...) please contact me.

                        Or offering a week per month solution for the magazines Iike the one I work on for example?

                         

                        Adrian