1. The impact of user interfaces for CAT
on time, quality and user satisfaction
Author: Lisa Koeman
Supervisor: Christof Monz

2. Why?

3. An example: Internet population over the years
1990
0,1%
8%
15%
0,2%
77%
Africa Asia Europe
Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean
Oceania / Australia

4. An example: Internet population over the years
2011
1990
1%
0,1%
6%
10%
8%
15% 13%
0,2%
3%
44%
77%
23%
Africa Asia Europe
Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean
Oceania / Australia

5. An example: Internet population over the years
2011
1%
6%
10%
13%
1990
3%
44%
23%
Africa Asia Europe
Middle East North America Latin America / Caribbean
Oceania / Australia

6. How can we make all this information
accessible to all people?

7. Machine translation
Source text Machine translation

8. But...

9. Machine translation
“The machine “De automatische
translations simply vertalingen eenvoudig
aren't perfect” zijn niet perfect”

10. However, machine translation
does bring speed & consistency
So...

11. Computer-aided Translation
Source text Machine translation Final translation

12. Whether and to what extent do different
translation interfaces impact the post-
editing task?

13. How?

14. Functionality
analysis
Eight experimental translation interfaces

15. Experimental design
- time per word
- correct for translators’
time
speed
quality
user satisfaction ti (x,y)−tx,y
n ¯
¯
tx,y
×100
¯
d= i=1
s

16. Experimental design
time
quality
user satisfaction
team of judges
κw = 1 − wij poij
wij pcij

17. Experimental design
time
quality
user satisfaction
survey

18. What?

19. Results: time
9,00
6,75
Frequency
4,50
2,25
0
-0,225 -0,150 -0,075 0 0,075 0,150 0,225 0,300
Time per word (in minutes)
Source text only Source text + machine translation
Machine translation only Source text + machine translation + alternatives

20. Results: quality
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 15 4 0 1 0 1 13 5 2 1 1
2 9 14 7 4 7 2 4 11 6 6 8
3 4 7 9 5 14 3 6 3 10 11 8
4 5 9 11 14 12 4 3 5 12 15 20
5 10 3 10 8 10 5 2 6 10 12 12
Adequacy Fluency

21. Results: user satisfaction
13%
29%
58%
Preference for sentence view
Preference for document view
No preference

22. One of
the results

23. Results: an example
‘Document view’ ‘Sentence view’
Signi cantly less time Signi cantly better quality
Signi cantly preferred

24. In
conclusion

25. 1
Presented a way to compare
translation interfaces

26. 2
Found signi cant differences in
time, quality and user satisfaction
between translation interfaces

27. 3
Contributed to
existing CAT research
and looked at translator behaviour

28. 4
Results can be used
as recommendations for the
development of translation interfaces,
although further research is recommended

29. Any
questions?
contact: lisa.koeman@student.uva.nl