“Quality” Doesn’t Do The Trick
Friday, August 14th, 2009 | Author: Michael
Translators faced with the question of translation quality often find themselves in the same place as the late Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart when he was trying to come to grips with hard-core pornography: unable to formulate a definition but convinced that “I know it when I see it.” Even if you believe that translation quality, however it may manifest itself, is important, you have to admit that this is a really weak position from which to request higher fees or longer deadlines.
To make up for this lack of definition, all sorts of metrics have been developed in the big quest to find the unbeatable Q argument. Some assign numeric values to the translation – comparing numbers makes it look more scientific and objective. Others prescribe a certain process and award certifications to those who promise to follow the process – the idea being that the process guarantees a minimum of quality.
However, I believe that clients, with very few exceptions, really don’t care about this I-know-it-when-I-see-it quality enough to invest more money, effort, or time. I have heard too many times replies like “It’s just a maintenance manual, not Nobel Prize material” – meaning that they don’t want to pay what I ask or grant me the requested time frame. Even the quality certification or the quality metrics don’t translate to anything that they see as having a sufficient effect on the user experience to be meaningful within their cost-benefit universe.
Category: Business, Translation | 7 Comments








