In this last section, we briefly summarise the data collected in order to answer to the first researcher question RQ1 (‘Can CAT tools support and therefore transfer all the relevant accessibility features when processing an HTML5 file?’), and check the first hypothesis H1 (‘CAT tools do not support and transfer all the accessibility features.’). In the following table (Table 4.1), we show the results for both SDL Trados Studio 2017 and MemoQ v8.7. Findings are grouped in the following categories: settings manipulation, the actual support and transfer of the feature, and the eventual additional information provided by the tools. In green, we indicated the elements offered by the tools, while in red we showed the missing features and functionalities.
Table 4.1: Summary of the results of the tool descriptive analysis.
At a glance, we notice that SDL Trados Studio 2017 supports and transfers a higher number of features compared to MemoQ v8.7. However, we deem it important to highlight the fact that some of these elements may not be transferred if localisers do not modify certain settings or are not aware of the outcome of the specific parameters offered by the tool. This is the case, for instance, of SC such as Language of Page and Labels or Instructions.
In general, we can state that both CAT tools retrieve and detect correctly the translatable elements that are not embedded in the code. For instance, both systems displayed in the editor interface the title of the page, the links and the error messages. Concerning the first element, both tools also included a few segments that contained content that should not be translated, i.e.
the value of title attributes included in the meta element. It is important to highlight this issue, as the code could be damaged if localisers do not neutrally transfer these elements. In relation to links, SDL Trados Studio 2017 offered less useful information compared to MemoQ v8.7, as in several segments, the source code, which can provide information about the link path, was not included. Moreover, the markup content displayed in the error messages segments in MemoQ v8.7 did not provide any context about the errors.
Concerning the embedded content, we collected mixed data. On the one hand, both tools present settings related to text alternatives, can support and transfer alt attributes, and also provide additional information about the feature’s context. This is a positive aspect, as the localisation
of non-text content is an important step in achieving accessibility. On the other hand, we identified several issues related to the lang attribute. Although both tools can support and adapt the target language of the document, users must be aware of the different settings and the selection of the language pair. In SDL Trados Studio 2017, users could be deceived by the option concerning this element, while in MemoQ v8.7 users should check the exact locale of the source language and select the language pair accordingly. Moreover, both tools were not able to transfer the language of parts, which is the only problem we could not resolve for the two CAT tools. Another issue that the researcher could not overcome was the localisation of the aria-label attribute in MemoQ v8.7. While in SDL Trados Studio 2017 it is possible to add this element, in MemoQ v8.7 it appears that users cannot modify the settings.
Overall, SDL Trados Studio 2017 offers the possibility to change more elements in the settings compared to MemoQ v8.7, which has import settings related to only Non-text Content and Bypass Blocks. Although we can state that, from this point of view, SDL Trados Studio 2017 is more flexible, the results we obtained with both tools were similar. We could hypothesise, therefore, that having knowledge of accessibility can be decisive when using both tools.
Furthermore, in relation to additional information, we noticed that SDL Trados Studio 2017 provides more information, but users should be familiar with the tool, as some of this information is not directly displayed in the editor, but rather in the document structure information tab. In MemoQ, on the contrary, the additional information was primarily included in the form of tags that showed and protected the original source code.
With the tool descriptive analysis of the two CAT tools, we could confirm the first hypothesis H1, which stated that CAT tools do not support and transfer all the accessibility features.
Nevertheless, the outcome was better than what we had envisaged: SDL Trados Studio 2017 could not transfer only one feature, while MemoQ v8.7 could not transfer two. Therefore, we cannot answer affirmatively or negatively to the first research question RQ1. On the one hand, both tools seem to support the transfer of the majority of the selected SC; on the other hand, we still need to take into consideration that not all accessibility features could be transferred, and that many variables can have an impact on the transferability of these elements, such as the knowledge about the tool and the experience of the user, the processed file type and accessibility. All these aspects have been considered in the second stage of our research.
5 Results of the tool evaluation
This chapter provides the results for the experimental study. The data analysed include the following: the target files produced by novice localisers (version 1 and version 2), the participants’ answers to a post-evaluation questionnaire and the notes taken by the researcher through the observation of participants during the experiment. These data will be examined to answer the second research question RQ2 and check hypothesis H2, H3, and H4. In Section 5.1, we measure the effect that the first independent variable (CAT tools) caused on the three dependent variables, namely functional correctness, functional completeness, and functional appropriateness. Section 5.2 deals with the second independent variable (knowledge of accessibility) to examine the last hypothesis H4. Last, in Section 5.3, we summarise the main findings and discuss them to draw some preliminary conclusions.