international technical communication

Editing for International

BY V A L E R I E R U S H A N A N , Senior Member Audiences

C
ompanies that have em- h u m a n processes, and how to enforce a n d consistency, a n d the correct applica-
braced the global market- standards across their organizations. t i o n of style guides and templates. They
place in their efforts to grow check automated references. The
and r e m a i n competitive are Where We Are luckiest are able to r e c o m m e n d a n d
constantly l o o k i n g for ways to localize In the past few years, technical com- i m p l e m e n t broader changes, such as re-
their products a n d content faster, bet- m u n i c a t i o n teams have been severely structuring content.
ter, and—most of all—less expensively. downsized a n d simultaneously expect- That said, few technical communi-
Technical editors, in cooperation ed to w o r k across m u l t i p l e time zones. cators or editors focus on content vol-
w i t h technical communicators, manag- Many teams no longer include editors, ume—page or topic count, graphics
ers, a n d localization coordinators, can a n d some teams do n o t even have time count, and especially w o r d count—and it
contribute to these goals by increasing for peer editing. This situation has ren- is extremely rare that editors cut content
content reuse a n d m u l t i l i n g u a l usability dered the challenges technical c o m m u - appreciably. U n t i l recendy, volume d i d n ' t
while reducing volume and e l i m i n a t i n g nicators face m o r e difficult. matter, so editors usually weren't asked to
culturally sensitive language. Editors also Editors check documents for gram- control it and weren't used to d o i n g so.
need to understand the role of tools a n d mar a n d spelling errors, terminology O n l y once d i d one of my previous em-

16 intercom ImageZoo/Punchstock

ployers tell me I needed to pay attention
to volume (I had inherited a 500-page
book that wouldn't fit in the product box
if it reached 550 pages). Now, the limit-
i n g factor is n o t the size of the box but
the size of the localization budget.
T h e content that technical c o m m u n i -
cation groups painstakingly create and
edit (sometimes having made an effort
to prepare for localization) is still far
f r o m optimized. Most technical docu-
ments are unnecessarily l o n g and are
n o t as prepared for the localization pro-
cess as they c o u l d be.
Existing Strategies—Not Recommended
Content volume is the chief factor in
the cost of localization. Companies of-
ten make desperate attempts to c o n t r o l
volume by l i m i t i n g the components that
are translated. For example, a company
may deem the user guide less i m p o r t a n t
than the installation guide and choose
n o t to translate the user guide. For p o i n t
releases, some companies do n o t local-
ize any product content ( i n c l u d i n g soft-
ware, o n l i n e help, p r i n t e d documents,
Web content, and marketing collateral).
These localization decisions, w h i c h
are driven solely by cost considerations,
amount to p r o d u c t amputation. They
are patently illogical for users w h o need
the content in their own languages—
and they d o n ' t support the company's
global image.
Tools and Technologies
To address localization cost issues,
some technical c o m m u n i c a t i o n groups
are m i g r a t i n g toward tools and tech-
nologies such as content management
systems (CMS), D a r w i n I n f o r m a t i o n
Typing Architecture ( D I T A ) , and X M L .
Language service providers employ
translation m e m o r y ( T M ) technology,
w h i c h uses databases that store the orig-
i n a l text and its equivalent (translated
by humans) in each target language.
TM allows the reuse of translated seg-
ments (similar to sentences), thereby
speeding up the translation process. If
the segments are consistent enough,
service providers can offer discounts on
translation costs. For content that has
m u l t i p l e revisions—such as technical
c o n t e n t — T M technology is ideal.
December 2007
international technical communication
O t h e r tools, technologies, and meth-
odologies exist and are being devel-
oped, but so far, CMS, D I T A , X M L , a n d
TM are the most useful for preparing
most types of technical content for lo-
calization. W h i l e these solutions focus
on reuse—saving some time and money
—they d o n ' t address the issue of con-
tent volume.
Consider this: the time and cost sav-
ings of content w i t h reduced or con-
t r o l l e d volume far outweigh the benefits
of reusing content.
Where We Are Going
Tools help improve many processes,
but, fortunately for technical c o m m u -
nicators, there is still a need for the
h u m a n m i n d to make value j u d g m e n t s
required to produce technical content
(see Figure 1).
Editors need to t h i n k in terms of the
b i g picture as well as p e r f o r m granular
work. They may need to eliminate use-
less content "limbs" and also p e r f o r m
content "liposuction" ( t h r o u g h t h o u -
sands of tiny cuts)—and develop strate-
gies for b o t h . If they d o n ' t i m p l e m e n t
these strategies while the content is still
i n their hands, the result will be wasteful
content that proliferates across markets
a r o u n d the globe.
F r o m the start, technical c o m m u n i -
cators must develop content w i t h lo-
calization and m u l t i l i n g u a l usability in
m i n d — a n d we need practical methods
of achieving those goals. This requires
significant changes in b o t h our organi-
zations and o u r own t h i n k i n g .
Figure I. Strong processes need both technology
Technology
Consistency: reuse of existing
information
Databases / file management:
storage, retrieval
Source control
Consistent application of rules
Predictability
Weak-
nesses in; they usually do not fix what's
wrong; cannot even identify what's
useless, frustrating to users: too
voluminous
m Application of rules may be too
rigid
intercom
How We Can Get There
Perhaps some day, technology will
help us efficiently prepare content for
localization, but u n t i l then, we are going
to have to do most of the w o r k ourselves.
We must pay attention to areas such as
content volume, usability, cultural neu-
trality, and coordination across teams.
Impetus for Change
Linguists, usability specialists, a n d
others have l o n g felt that localization
is the r i g h t t h i n g to do. But what's re-
ally d r i v i n g the recent focus on creating
m u l t i l i n g u a l content—especially con-
t r o l l i n g volume—is the business need to
expand globally a n d the perceived h i g h
cost of localization.
W h y perceived? Because over the past
two decades, the localization industry
has driven translation costs d o w n about
as low as they can go, and the cost of
localization in most cases is a tiny frac-
tion of the r e t u r n that companies get
in the target markets. C o m m o n Sense
Advisory's research has f o u n d that com-
panies that earn almost h a l f their rev-
enue f r o m outside the U n i t e d States
"spent between one-quarter of one per-
cent and 2.5 percent" of their annual
international market revenue on lo-
calization. A c c o r d i n g to this study, one
company "spends more landscaping its
campus than it does localizing."
T h a t said, sizable budgets are some-
times needed to localize large volumes
m u l t i p l i e d by a h i g h n u m b e r of lan-
guages. Therefore, editors must focus
on c o n t r o l l i n g volume in the source
and human input.
Humans
Consistency: creating reusable terms,
phrases, sentences that get put in
tools
Value judgments (what makes sense,
is right / wrong, better quality)
Creating strategies, standards
Coordinating efforts for which there are
(yet) no tools
authors, documents, products, and
time:
- Rules
- T e r m s , phrases, sentences
• Application of rules is often inconsistent
(but uniqueness is sometimes needed)
17
international technical communication
language before the cost is m u l t i p l i e d
by the n u m b e r of target languages.
Well-established organizations often
have large volumes of legacy content
that was created before localization was
commonplace, and the need to localize
this content puts pressure on managers
t r y i n g to c o n t r o l costs. Even younger or-
ganizations w i t h smaller budgets and a
need to localize in many languages are
feeling the p i n c h .
Cultural Neutrality
Most technical communicators know
they should pay attention to cultural is-
sues when creating m u l t i l i n g u a l content,
b u t many have l i m i t e d knowledge in this
area. Well-meaning strategies that advo-
cate learning about other cultures and
avoiding certain colors or numbers can
be misleading. For example, in Chinese
culture, the n u m b e r 4 is considered u n -
lucky (it sounds similar to the character
for "death"), b u t you still have to use it
in procedures that contain at least four
steps. Similarly, the use of color, while
i m p o r t a n t for Web sites and marketing
materials, has m i n i m a l impact in techni-
cal documentation. Certainly, studying
cultures is an admirable goal, b u t the
time required to have sufficient depth
outweighs business benefits. We must
focus on cultural issues that affect tech-
nical documentation.
Writers d o n ' t always avoid slang and
j a r g o n , so editors can start by replacing
such terms w i t h standard language.
Another type of cultural issue to look
for, and one that can help reduce the
amount of content, is the use of a conver-
sational tone. Consider these examples:
That's it! Simple, right? You're
almost there.
Congratulations! You've completed
the lesson.
Some teams make a concerted effort
to create friendly content, b u t it often
doesn't translate well—and usually cre-
ates verbosity. Editors must remember
that users want to solve problems quick-
ly, so having to read more words—in any
language—is frustrating.
Multilingual Usability
We know that content should be writ-
18
ten based on user profiles. But techni- Here's another critical p o i n t : phras-
cal c o m m u n i c a t i o n teams rarely have es such as Click OK are n o t only m u c h
access to solid user data (let's hope this shorter than Click OK to save your changes
changes!), n o t to m e n t i o n the fact that and return to the Configuration Options dia-
m u l t i l i n g u a l users are rarely consulted. log box, b u t are infinitely more reusable.
Editors can at least focus content on
the data they're able to get. For exam- Industry Standards
ple, i n c l u d i n g a statement such as This W h y does it seem to be the industry
manual is for the beginning through the standard to include so m u c h waste?
advanced user is useless—the statement Because that's the way everyone else
could refer to all the world's users, and does it, the way we were taught to do i t ,
therefore, all the content that could and the way our style guide says to do
possibly be w r i t t e n about the product. it. Editors need to learn to identify op-
Instead of accepting such an unfocused portunities for i m p r o v e m e n t and adapt
user profile (which may come f r o m to the idea that users want only the con-
p r o d u c t management or m a r k e t i n g ) , tent that they actually need.
try getting user data f r o m those in your Change is painful—especially when it
organization ( i n c l u d i n g offices abroad) involves l o o k i n g at how we create con-
w h o have direct contact w i t h users. tent. It's easier to clinically analyze the
seemingly inorganic and objective—
What's Next? such as tools and technologies—than
O f course, you can't j u s t chop o f f i m - our own content. W h e n one of my stu-
portant i n f o r m a t i o n . Editors need to dents learned how the use of "all caps"
learn to find the fat, isolate it, and re- created p r o d u c t i o n problems in local-
move it methodically. Take the quiz in ization and made readers in some lan-
Figure 2 to see whether you can deter- guages uncomfortable, he decided to
m i n e what should follow. find o u t why his organization used this
Figure 2. A localization quiz.
1. What happens after c o m p l e t i n g this instruction?
Click O K
a. Your changes are saved.
b. The dialog box closes.
c. B o t h of the above.
2. What paragraph tag comes after this introduction?
Follow this step-by-step procedure:
a. Bullet
b. N u m b e r e d step
c. H e a d i n g level 2
3. In a wizard, what happens after a user follows this command?
Click Next.
a. T h e wizard closes and the product's m a i n window appears.
b. You enter a U R L and click Go.
c. You continue to the wizard's next page.
Answers and Comments:
1. c: This is standard behavior for most any application. If the result is predict-
able, why d o c u m e n t it?
2. b: N u m b e r e d steps clearly indicate a procedure. There is no need to tell users
a procedure is c o m i n g up next.
3. c: W h y are sentences such as Click Next to continue to the wizard's nextpageso com-
mon? T h e p o i n t of wizards is that they already contain the instructions for the
user. D o c u m e n t i n g those instructions again is pure waste.
intercom December 2007

convention. It turns o u t that it had been
i m p l e m e n t e d twenty-five years ago, and
no one had questioned it since.
It all comes back to a cultural shift
w i t h i n our organizations. To address is-
sues such as these, we have to reexamine
o u r style guides, templates, and other
structures. This takes committees (with
plenty of disagreement, no d o u b t ) , con-
sensus, testing, and time.
Quality, Quantity, or Time?
L i k e most people in business, editors
are faced w i t h the classic trade-off of
quality versus quantity versus time. In
the past, the editor's task has largely fo-
cused on quality, b u t time has become
a m u c h m o r e significant factor, and the
quantity of content has exploded as nev-
er before.
Accompanying these shifts in empha-
sis has been a b o o m in tools enabling
reuse and increased productivity, a fo-
cus on simplicity in the field of usability,
and increased attention to w r i t i n g con-
cisely. M o r e editors are w o r k i n g elec-
tronically rather than i n h a r d copy. I n
a few groups, editors even make volume
reductions direcdy in files. This requires
consensus, as well as integration i n t o
the team and comfort using a u t h o r i n g
tools—trends that are g r o w i n g for all
the r i g h t reasons.
T h o u g h it is an editor's nature to fo-
cus on quality and details (that's a g o o d
t h i n g ) , remember that overall volume
and usability (that is, quality) are also
related. C o n t r o l l i n g volume serves o u r
employer (by reducing p r o d u c t cost
and m a k i n g editors m o r e valuable em-
ployees) a n d users, a n d reduces the
December 2007
international technical communication
time r e q u i r e d for localization. A n d j u s t
t h i n k about how m u c h less time y o u ' l l
need to edit the next revision!
Tracking Progress
We must learn to better prepare con-
tent for global users, and to do so while
controlling expenses. This involves
foreign languages and math—togeth-
er—two things that do n o t come natu-
rally to editors in general. Being fluent
in another language or two is helpful,
although it isn't necessary. We need to
learn to avoid things (such as text in all
caps) that unnecessarily hamper local-
ization or impede m u l t i l i n g u a l usability.
A n d it's i m p o r t a n t to track, c o n t r o l , and
predict content volume.
Tracking volume is easy. You can
count words in a Microsoft Word docu-
m e n t by selecting Tools > Word Count.
In A d o b e FrameMaker, select File >
Utilities > Document Reports > Word
Count. After l e a r n i n g the type of con-
tent to avoid or delete, y o u can track
the w o r d c o u n t again and r e p o r t p r o g -
ress to the management.
Editors as Leaders
Editors can lead by creating lists of ac-
ceptable and unacceptable t e r m i n o l o -
gy; chairing style-guide committees; and
suggesting, d o c u m e n t i n g , and enforc-
i n g changes w i t h the aid of technology.
Try to include an editor in cross-
functional teams, and to have an editor
coordinate terminology and phrasing
across products. Quality, consistency,
reuse, and avoidance of cultural issues
ought to start w i t h i n the product, or
flaws can proliferate t h r o u g h o u t the
intercom
source content and i n t o the localized
versions of the p r o d u c t and content.
Perhaps because we are involved in
creating high-tech products, o u r com-
m u n i t y tends to believe that technology
w i l l p e r f o r m miracles. Some companies
invest large amounts of money in tools
and expect a h i g h R O I after a year or
two; the R O I f r o m volume r e d u c t i o n
most often occurs in the first project.
W h i l e tools are very good at enabling
reuse (which helps humans—it's dif-
ficult for us to remember potentially
reusable material across topics, help
systems, products, w r i t i n g teams on sev-
eral continents), they do not, in and of
themselves, create reusable topics or
sentences. T h a t requires a symbiotic re-
lationship between humans and tools.
W i t h their broader view across docu-
ments, products, and w r i t i n g teams,
editors are in a good position to make
recommendations to their teams and
companies. Editors should evaluate and
r e c o m m e n d tools and lead in the devel-
o p m e n t and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of rules,
some of w h i c h can be integrated w i t h
t o o l use. As many teams have discovered
since m o v i n g to topic-based w r i t i n g , we
need to define o u r w r i t i n g rules and
strategies for reuse before i m p l e m e n t -
i n g a technology solution. I n c l u d i n g
volume c o n t r o l and reuse o p t i m i z a t i o n
in the p l a n n i n g , i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , track-
i n g , localization, and revision processes
is imperative. ©
SUGGESTED READING
DePalma, D o n a l d A . , and Renato Beni-
natto. Beggars at the Globalization Banquet:
Optimizing the Return on Investment of
Localization in the Enterprise. C o m m o n
Sense Advisory, Inc. November, 2002.
Valerie Rushanan (valerie@architext-usa
.com) is a multilingual technical content
expert with twenty-four years' experience in
teaching, technical translation, and techni-
cal communication.
 THE MAGAZINE OF THE SOCIETY FOR TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION SIC

December 200 SIX TIPS FOR

CONSULTING
SUCCESS

EDITING FOR
INTERNATIONAL
AUDIENCES

HONE YOUR
PROFESSIONAL
SKILLS:

1 l v l » l i « Ui R

pr
i.!..).ii....i.i.ii..i.,i.,i«i...,mi 111 with Document Design
112948 ICOft and Development
PAULA H HARLOW ??94B
BECKMAN COULTER> INC P14B
7451 WINTON DP:
INDIANAPOLIS IN 46268-5103