Account confirmers, canmove, Confirmed users
2,357
edits
Intellego: Difference between revisions
→Project details
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
;Breaking closed ecosystems | ;Breaking closed ecosystems | ||
The current machine translation ecosystem is dominated by proprietary, closed systems. This includes their code base, their data collection processes, and public accessibility to their language resources. Additionally, the open MT ecosystem suffers from being unable to reach the vast majority of participants on the web through web services or APIs. | The current machine translation ecosystem is dominated by proprietary, closed systems. This includes their code base, their data collection processes, and public accessibility to their language resources. Additionally, the open MT ecosystem suffers from being unable to reach the vast majority of participants on the web through web services or APIs. | ||
;MT should not be a "one-size-fits-all" solution | |||
MT users are limited to using engines that follow a single MT methodology for all language pairs and content types. Studies have shown that a one-size-fits-all approach in MT does not provide the user with optimal translation output. Users need a single access point to different MT engines following different MT methodologies that will produce the best quality output by selecting the right engine for the right language pair. Intellego seeks to further establish an open MT ecosystem, as we feel it is the best way to accomplish this. | MT users are limited to using engines that follow a single MT methodology for all language pairs and content types. Studies have shown that a one-size-fits-all approach in MT does not provide the user with optimal translation output. Users need a single access point to different MT engines following different MT methodologies that will produce the best quality output by selecting the right engine for the right language pair. Intellego seeks to further establish an open MT ecosystem, as we feel it is the best way to accomplish this. | ||
;Machine translation in Firefox | ;Machine translation in Firefox | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
;Machine translation at Mozilla | ;Machine translation at Mozilla | ||
Many Mozilla l10n teams consist of only 1-2 people. While they would love to be able to provide l10n coverage for all of the Mozilla support sites (and other projects) they do not have the time or resources to accomplish the task. Users, thus, have a localized Firefox, but lack documented product support in their language. | Many Mozilla l10n teams consist of only 1-2 people. While they would love to be able to provide l10n coverage for all of the Mozilla support sites (and other projects) they do not have the time or resources to accomplish the task. Users, thus, have a localized Firefox, but lack documented product support in their language. | ||
;Advancements in MT research | ;Advancements in MT research | ||
Language support selection for machine translation projects are driven, in part, by ROI and availability of resources. This often results in minority languages, and even some majority languages (see Indic languages) being under-represented in the machine translation ecosystem. While ROI continues to be a primary motivator for incorporating support for these languages, they will remain under-represented and unsupported. | Language support selection for machine translation projects are driven, in part, by ROI and availability of resources. This often results in minority languages, and even some majority languages (see Indic languages) being under-represented in the machine translation ecosystem. While ROI continues to be a primary motivator for incorporating support for these languages, they will remain under-represented and unsupported. | ||