The Slator style guide serves as the single source of truth on such questions. (In case you’re curious, it is “voice-over” but “email,” although we still spell it “Web” and “Internet.” We treat acronyms as regular proper nouns and initialisms as, well, initials: Covid, HIV-Aids, and so on.)
The European Medicines Agency (EMA), too, uses a style guide, which it described as a “compilation of QRD decisions on stylistic matters in product information.” In it, the EMA recommended avoiding the term “drug” in product information annexes as “it entails a risk of misinterpretation and mistranslation.”
Moreover, the EMA asked pharmaceutical manufacturers to write or translate the package leaflet in active voice, comply with labeling regulations by translating full terms in normal text followed by the abbreviation in gray-shading, among other guidelines.
Most Slator readers appear to appreciate the value of a style guide, with only less than a tenth saying they could do without it. The rest, however, were split between those who see the style guide as Absolutely (42%) necessary to a translation project and those who see it as Preferred, but not essential (49%).
Live Translation as the NBT
It has been a month since Zoom unveiled “real-time translation and multilingual captions” under a newly packaged suite called Zoom One.
More recently, Language I/O’s newly appointed CMO, Tobias Rinsche, told Slator that the US-based machine translation startup was “close to releasing” real-time, automated voice translation.
Now, Slator has covered translation gadgets founded on so-called live translation tech for years. But when a company such as Zoom — whose Kites acquisition was only its second M&A — starts to roll out real-time translation, the industry perks up.
Slator Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) Localization Report
90-page report on how SaaS companies partner with LSPs to localize products, drive market/user growth. Incl. market size, tech review.
It seems early days though as far as Slator readers are concerned. Asked if they think “live translation” in video calls will find real adoption in the next couple of years, more than a third said Yes and over a fourth said it Probably would.
The rest were more skeptical about it being the next big thing, saying live translation could Maybe (16%) gain traction or No, it wouldn’t (23%).
What’s the Problem With RSI?
Remote simultaneous interpretation (RSI) has certainly been around long enough — gaining so much ground that issues are starting to crop up.
In the last couple of months alone, Slator has covered interpreters grappling with vicarious trauma, pushing back hard against remote interpretation at the UN, and suspending remote interpreting services at the EU.
By the way, the ISO for conference interpreting was also launched this year. Here’s what interpreting providers need to know about ISO 23155.
Close to half the respondents to Slator’s reader poll see RSI as Very useful tech creating new opportunities (42%), Net positive (5%), or Currently net negative but may change with better tech (22%).
A fourth, however, view RSI as Net negative — no matter what, while the rest said the Jury’s still out (5%).
What About Machine Dubbing?
In June 2022, Slator reported on two AI dubbing startups raising funds: Papercup in a USD 20-million series A and Dubverse in a 0.8m seed round. Turning to machine dubbing is one attempt to ease spiraling demand for content localization, if only for the less complex requirements of the video localization market, for now.
As previously mentioned, early adopters are already deploying the new tech to immediately expand a product’s global reach via user-generated content, corporate videos, even direct-response videos for online consumers.
Slator 2022 Language Industry Market Report
100-page flagship report on market size, buyer-segments, competitive landscape, sales and marketing insights, language tech and more.
Slator readers are split on the issue of machine dubbing. While some see it as Great for viewers speaking low-resource languages (20%), others view it as Only for short, social media videos (22%).
The majority view the tech more negatively, however, pointing out that it’s Risky to combine MT + robo voice (29%) or stating that machine dubbing is not for them (29%).
