Usability as a focus of multiprofessional collaboration: A teaching case study on user-centered translation

connexions l international professional communication journal 2015, 3(2), 147-166 ISSN 2325-6044 USABILITY AS A FOCUS OF MULTIPROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION A teaching case study on user-centered translation Tytti Suojanen University of Tampere, Finland Kaisa Koskinen University of Eastern Finland, Finland Tiina Tuominen University of Tampere, Finland As professional communication needs are increasingly multilingual, the merging of translator and technical communicator roles has been predicted. However, it may be more advantageous for these two professional groups to increase cooperation. This means learning to identify and appreciate their distinct but mutually complementary core competencies. Since both professions share the ideology of being the user’s advocate, usability is a common denominator that can function as a focal point of collaboration. While many translation theories focus on the reader and the target context, usability methods have not traditionally been a part of translator training. An innovation called User-Centered Translation (UCT), which is a model based on usability and user-centered design, is intended to help translators speak the same language as technical communicators, and it offers concrete usability tools which have been missing from translation theories. In this teaching case study, we discuss the teaching of four UCT methods: personas, the implied reader, heuristic evaluation, and usability testing. We describe our teaching experiences, analyze student feedback on all four, and report on the implementation of a student assignment on heuristics. This case study suggests ways in which UCT can form an important nexus of professional skills and multiprofessional collaboration. 148 Keywords . Multiprofessional collaboration, Technical communication, Translator training, Usability, User-centered translation. At contemporary workplaces, translators and technical communicators often work on the same projects, and they face similar types of challenges during the text production process. These challenges often entail so called end-of-the-line problems, referring to the fact that translators and technical communicators are brought into the product development cycle at a late stage, when most key decisions have already been made, and they therefore tend to remain at a distance from core discussions (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 17–18). This problem was identified as early as 1989 by Patricia Sullivan, but it still seems to persist in both translation and technical communication. The two professions also share common competencies, such as the abilities to analyse source material and communicate with subject matter experts (Risku, 2004). Both professions aspire for high quality texts, and both translators and technical communicators feel that they are not always able to optimally cater for the end users’ needs. As Minacori and Veisblat (2010) note, both in the US and in Europe there is “an unquestionable need for the two professions to work closely together” (p. 763). As business communication needs are increasingly multilingual by nature, the merging of translator and technical communicator roles has been predicted (e.g., Gnecchi, Maylath, Mousten, Scarpa, and Vandepitte, 2011). Furthermore, some translation scholars have expressed the need to introduce new competencies, beyond those that traditional translation curricula have offered (Gouadec, 2007), and to encourage cross-training practices by including technical communication in translator training programs (Byrne, 2006). Likewise, recent surveys reported by Gnecchi et al. (2011, p. 178) suggest that professional/technical/scientific communication (PTSC) curricula contain translation and localization courses as well as writing courses that focus on plain language, usability, and structured writing. The results of their surveys also indicate that translation curricula should contain courses on managing translation/multilingual PTSC projects. We agree with Gnecchi et al.’s (2011, p. 179) notion that there is a need for further study 149 on the current trends and for forecasting future developments. We also think that, at this stage, it is necessary to try out different approaches in translator training. In this paper, we report on a teaching case where course content familiar from technical communication has been targeted specifically at translation students. We are searching for ways for the two professions to enhance their cooperation and understanding of each other’s expertise. Since both professions share the ideology of being the user’s advocate, usability is a common denominator that can function as a focal point of collaboration. However, while technical communicators are traditionally trained to use different methods to enhance the usability of documentation, user-orientation is much more diffuse in translator training. While many translation theories (skopos theory in particular) also focus on the reader and the target context (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 40–47), usability methods have not traditionally been a part of the translator’s competence nor have they been included in translator training. Since 2009, we have been involved in designing and conducting courses with a usability focus for translation students. Our pedagogical innovations are based on a novel, usability-based approach to translation called User-Centred Translation (UCT). Our aim has been to enhance students’ professional skills and collaborative competencies for working in multiprofessional teams. These courses have taken a number of shapes and they have been—and are being—offered in several Finnish universities. User-centred translation, which is the heart of our teaching case, is defined as follows: “In user-centered translation, information about users is gathered iteratively throughout the process and through different methods, and this information is used to create a usable translation” (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 4). An iterative process means that users are analysed and usability is evaluated through recursive usability research methods, which can be used at different stages of the process as needed. At the beginning, a detailed specification is drafted together with the commissioner. The specification contains information concerning the expected usability targets of the translation (e.g., style, terminology, readability), intended target audience, and UCT methods to be used. The specification is important, because the finished translation will be evaluated against the 150 specification, not some ideal of a perfect match between the source text and the target text. To achieve a usable outcome, the specification needs to include information about the targeted readers and the desired functions of the translation. Rubin and Chisnell (2008) offer the following definition for usability, which is the core concept behind the UCT model: “when a product or service is truly usable, the user can do what he or she wants to do the way he or she expects to be able to do it, without hindrance, hesitation, or questions” (p. 4). During the translation process itself, a variety of usability methods can be used. In our publications, we have, so far, discussed the following usability methods: • mental models (persona, intratextual reader positions, including the implied reader, and audience design) • heuristic evaluation • empirical usability methods (including usability testing) • reception research (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 3–6). In this teaching case study, we will report on our experiences in teaching usercentred translation, with particular emphasis on discussing how it can enhance translation students’ professional skills and competencies for multiprofessional collaboration. The need for collaboration obviously extends beyond the neighbouring profession of technical communication, but in this article we focus on the two professions. We suggest that a user-centred approach to translation can foster a shared framework of understanding that facilitates cooperation between translators and technical communicators. Data We have taught user-centred translation in specialized UCT courses, and individual methods included in the UCT model have also been introduced into regular translation courses. From our experiences, we have selected the following methods to be discussed in this teaching case study: the persona and the implied 151 reader as examples of mental models, heuristic evaluation, and usability testing. We will share our teaching experiences from various courses that have taken place between 2009 and 2015. In addition, we will use recent student feedback (n = 18) obtained on a course entitled User-Centered Translation held at the University of Tampere in the spring of 2015, and student assignments (n = 38) from various course contexts during the academic year 2014–2015.1 In the student feedback, we asked students to comment on each of the UCT methods introduced in the course. The feedback has been used in the sections of this article concerning personas, the implied reader, and usability testing. The discussion on heuristics, in turn, reports on an analysis of the student assignments in which the students performed a heuristic evaluation of a translated text and then reflected and gave feedback on this experience. The latter data set originates from different course contexts taught by ourselves, by other teachers, and in different universities. Usability Methods in Translator Training For each of the methods presented below, we will first briefly describe the method, then explain how the method has been and can be taught, and share both our main observations as well as the students’ views. Finally, we will discuss the benefits and potential risks of each in reference to developing skills for multiprofessional communication. Persona Defining the target audience is one of the crucial points of a translation process. One of the methods with which translators can pinpoint their reader(s) is the use of a persona. Personas are fictive archetypes of users: a persona has a name, background, and personality. A persona can be invented, but more often it is 1 In accordance with national ethical requirements, written informed consent has been obtained from all students whose assignments and feedback are used in this teaching case, and the students’ anonymity is protected. 152 based on empirical information on real users. Sometimes it is necessary to create several personas to meet the demands of varied target audiences (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 70).2 When using personas in a classroom context, we usually divide students into small groups and present them with a translation scenario or ask them to create one themselves. We then ask them to design a persona for the future reader of the translation. Finally, students are asked to consider what translation strategies would suit this particular persona best. The group writes down features and draws a picture of their persona on a flip chart and presents the persona to the whole group. We find that most often the personas are realistic and life-like, and only rarely do the students create an unimaginable persona, which would not be useful in the actual translation work. Students have been able to grasp the idea of personas quite easily, and their general feedback on the use of personas has been predominantly positive. Of the 18 course feedback responses, only three expressed exclusively negative attitudes, while seven made a positive evaluation and five found both positive and negative aspects in the use of personas. One did not comment on them at all, and two described personas in a neutral fashion. Those students whose evaluations were positive found personas fun and handy, light and agile, easy to learn, and meaningful. For example, one student stated that “the persona helps me understand in a somehow more concrete way what the target audience of the translation will be.”3 Another commented that a persona is “a fun way of clarifying the target audience, does not feel as heavy and laborious as many analysis models.” The persona concretizes the target audience and helps to find translation solutions. Many students found that the persona is particularly suitable for long projects, for repeated translations of the same genre, when translating texts for the same client, and in teams as a good kick-off for a project. 2 For an example of personas, see Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 8–10. 3 All translations of the direct quotations from student feedback are by the authors. 153 Those students whose feedback was negative found the persona to be artificial, too limiting, and stereotypical. One student commented: “I am bothered by the thought that I am limiting my writing by choosing a stereotype for whom I am writing my text.” One student mentioned that the persona is suitable only when the target audience is already somewhat limited. In addition, a translator might make an error of judgement and generalize too much; what happens if the persona fails? Another student mentioned that the persona needs to be complemented with something else so that it is not just the translator’s impression. This comment indicates a potentially common misperception that needs to be clarified in teaching: in the classroom the persona may often be a figment of imagination, but in real life the persona should always be confirmed with data about real readers. The persona seems to be an intuitive method and easy to adopt: we have discovered that once introduced to the idea, students transfer the use of personas to other courses, too. The feedback also supports this, as several students reported that they would make use of personas in the future. Personas thus appear to be a good point of contact between technical communicators and translators, as technical communicators are already accustomed to using personas regularly in their work. Personas can also be created in multiprofessional dialogue, to boost team spirit, and both professional groups can use the same personas in their work, thus adding consistency in text production. In addition, the creation of personas may help highlight the need to have new personas for new target languages, and new kinds of texts to meet their needs. Technical communicators may also have access to user data that translators can benefit from in creating their personas. Implied reader Another method for determining the target audience is the implied reader, which refers to reader positions built into texts. In other words, implied readers are assumed readers to whom writers target their texts (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 63). Implied readers can be discovered by analyzing a number of features in the text, such as the ways the reader is being addressed, or presuppositions which reveal 154 some of the reader’s personal characteristics and the expected level of the reader’s previous knowledge. As an example, let us take a look at the following short extract of a blog text: “Have you put on weight during the Christmas holidays? I have!” (Wallström, 2005). In this case, the implied reader comes from a background where Christmas is celebrated, is affluent enough to have overindulged over the holidays, has issues with self-image, and is potentially more likely to be female than male. In addition, the writer has created a sense of familiarity and lack of distance by referring to supposedly shared experiences and attitudes. In the classroom context, students are asked to find a source text and its translation, and analyze the reader positions that the texts contain. The students should examine what kind of an implied reader the characteristics of the texts suggest and whether the source text and the translation exhibit differences in terms of their implied readers, and why that may be so. Alternatively, students can be asked to select either a translation or a source text and analyze its implied reader(s). As with the persona, students’ attitudes toward the use of the implied reader have been very positive. In the course feedback, thirteen students expressed exclusively positive attitudes, while two stated both positive and negative views, and three described the method in a neutral fashion. None of the students expressed only negative comments about the implied reader. The students described the method as fun to use and interesting, and they found it useful. One student reflected on the surprises that the analysis might produce: “It is both fun and confusing to construct an implied reader, because one can find peculiar readers within texts. The implied reader is an efficient aid in recognizing the writer’s attitudes, style, typical expressions and ways of handling topics.” The implied reader was considered particularly useful in cases where the specification does not provide much background about the target audience and when the readers in the source and target texts are assumed to be similar. Many students felt that they intuitively already think about the reader, but the implied reader exercise made them more aware of how the reader is reflected in texts. Furthermore, they felt that it acts as a useful reminder of the potential 155 difference between the reader for whom they think they are translating and the person for whom they actually end up translating. In addition to identifying the writer’s attitudes, style and typical expressions, the implied reader was also seen to be a suitable tool for examining and evaluating one’s own attitudes and tendencies. While many students reported plans of using the method in the future, many also said that they would not use it systematically but that they might turn to it in situations where the target audience is especially vague. While personas can be considered a method more familiar to technical communicators but easily communicated to translators as well, the implied reader may be more democratic in terms of previous exposure: both translation studies and technical communication literature have employed concepts such as the implied reader in discussions concerning intratextual reader positions (Suojanen et al., 2015, p. 66–68). This method also holds great potential for enhanced cultural usability, as discussed by Suojanen, Koskinen and Tuominen (2015, p. 19–25). For example, in multilingual projects, translators to all target languages can be asked to analyze the source material produced by technical communicators. This analysis of the source text’s implied reader can reveal different interpretations of assumed previous knowledge, expected attitudes and lifestyles, and projected societal hierarchy levels, to name just a few interesting potential results. This kind of detailed feedback would allow a mutual learning opportunity for technical communicators and translators attuned to different cultural contexts. Heuristic Evaluation In addition to mental models such as persona and implied reader, translators can make use of another agile method, namely heuristic evaluation, to evaluate the usability of their texts. Heuristics are usability guidelines or principles, basic rules of thumb, and the evaluation is performed by experts—not the end users. Heuristics are being used in iterative product development: the product is evaluated repeatedly, problems are fixed and the following evaluation rounds are used to make sure that the problems no longer exist (Kuutti, 2003, p. 47–49). 162 More specifically, we looked at the interface between translators and technical communicators. From a teacher’s viewpoint, using the methods of persona, implied reader, heuristic evaluation, and usability testing has been a concrete and hands-on experience, stimulating in-depth discussions with students on translators’ competencies, abilities, limitations, and boundaries. The students’ overall response to the methods has been highly positive: the assignments were found to be interesting and different—fun even—and the majority felt that they would be useful when examining the target audience of a translation and in producing an appropriate translation for that audience. However, the students tended to focus on the usability of these methods from the perspective of the translator only, rather than envision a collaborative context in which they would be working side by side with other professionals such as technical communicators. They also expressed some skepticism about the usefulness of the methods, and with regard to heuristic evaluation, the heuristics had some usability problems. Above all, the skepticism addressed the opportunities for translators to actually take advantage of these methods in the hectic translation industry. It may well be the case that the students’ vision of their future role as subcontractors in the translation industry prevented them from seeing potential collaborative work contexts, where usability is not an add-on but rather an integral part of the set-up. But students may also already have accepted the end-of-the-line problem as the unquestioned status quo. One reason for these problems might be that the perspective of multiprofessional collaboration and true team membership has remained too implicit in the teaching sessions. Although the improvement of translators’ professional collaboration skills has been one driving force behind the development of the UCT model, the need to focus on the practical application of these new methods has led to a lack of transparency of its more meta-level objectives. In the future, we need to be more explicit in communicating and discussing the aims of the UCT model with regard to its interfaces to other professions. 163 So far, the UCT model and some of the methods have been tested primarily in academic settings, although some industry cases exist (see Otava, 2013), and we have also received some industry feedback. The next step is to scrutinize the model and its methods in real-life scenarios, to develop them iteratively to fit different types of industry situations, and to bring that knowledge back into the classroom. Primary industry concerns include the costs and benefits of introducing UCT into a business environment. This worry is also echoed by students. However, at least in user-interface design, usability methods have been shown to give positive returns on investment (Marcus, 2004). We expect similar results when usability methods are applied in translation. From the viewpoint of international professional communication, UCT and its methods help translators speak the same language as technical communicators, developers, and engineers, and it offers concrete tools that have been missing from translation theories. We believe that once translators adopt these tools, they will be better prepared to network, take their expert position alongside other professions in international communication contexts, and provide a valuable contribution. ■ References Byrne, J. (2006). Technical translation: Usability strategies for translating technical documentation. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Gnecchi, M., Maylath, B., Mousten, B., Scarpa, F., & Vandepitte, S. (2011). Field convergence between technical writers and technical translators: Consequences for training institutions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(2), 168–184. doi:10.1109/TPC.2011.2121750 Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a profession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Korvenranta, H. (2005). Asiantuntija-arvioinnit. [Expert evaluations]. In S. Ovaska, A. Aula, & P. Majaranta (Eds.), Käytettävyystutkimuksen menetelmät. [Methods in 164 usability engineering] (pp. 111–124). Tampere, Finland: Tietojenkäsittelytieteiden laitos, Tampereen yliopisto, raportti B-2005-1. Koskinen, J. (2005). Käytettävyystestaus. [Usability testing]. In S. Ovaska, A. Aula, & P. Majaranta (Eds.), Käytettävyystutkimuksen menetelmät. [Methods in usability engineering] (pp. 187–208). Tampere, Finland: Tietojenkäsittelytieteiden laitos, Tampereen yliopisto, raportti B-2005-1. Kuutti, W. (2003). Käytettävyys, suunnittelu ja arviointi. [Usability, design, and evaluation]. Helsinki: Talentum. Marcus, A. (2004). Return on investment for usable user-interface design: Examples and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.amanda.com/joomla_uploads/whitepapers/ AM+A_ROIWhitePaper_20Apr0%201.pdf Minacori, P., & Veisblat, L. (2010). Translation and technical communication: Chicken or egg? Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 55(4), 752–768. doi:10.7202/045689ar Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press. Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of human factors in computing systems (CHI 1990) (pp. 249–256). New York: ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/results.cfm?h=1&cfid=466900177&cftoken= 67970579 Otava, A. (2013). Focus on the audience: Three cases of user-centered translation (master’s thesis), Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:uta-201311151601 Risku, H. (2004). Migrating from translation to technical communication and usability. In G. Hansen (Ed.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies. Selected contributions from the EST congress, Copenhagen 2001 (pp. 181–195). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing. Sullivan, P. (1989). Beyond a narrow conception of usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 256–264. 165 Suojanen, T., Koskinen, K., & Tuominen, T. (2015). User-centered translation. London and New York: Routledge. Suojanen, T., & Tuominen, T. (accepted). Käännösten käytettävyyden heuristinen arviointi. [Heuristic evaluation of the usability of translations]. Suokas, J., Pukarinen, K., von Wolff, S., & Koskinen, K. (submitted). Testing: Putting translation usability to the test. Wallström, M. (2005, Jan. 13). Tsunami, Barroso Commission, Fado music. [Blog entry]. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2004-2009/blogs/ wallstrom/we_write_2005_and_a.html About the authors Tytti Suojanen is senior lecturer and head of the Technical Communications Programme at the University of Tampere, Finland. She is the coauthor of UserCentered Translation (Routledge 2015) together with Kaisa Koskinen and Tiina Tuominen. Her research interests include technical communication history, rhetoric, user instructions as genre and user-centered translation. Email. [email protected] Contact. Tytti Suojanen School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies 33014 University of Tampere Finland Kaisa Koskinen is professor of translation studies at the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu. She is the author of several monographs, including User-Centered Translation (Routledge 2015) together with Tytti Suojanen and Tiina Tuominen. Her current research interests include the concept of translatorial action, as well as translation, user experience and affect. Email. kai[email protected] 166 Contact. Kaisa Koskinen Professor of Translation Studies University of Eastern Finland PO Box 111 80101 JOENSUU Finland Tiina Tuominen is the acting professor of translation studies (English–Finnish) at the University of Tampere, Finland. Her PhD thesis (2012) investigates the reception of subtitled films. She is the coauthor of User-Centered Translation (Routledge 2015) together with Tytti Suojanen and Kaisa Koskinen. Her research interests include audiovisual translation, reception research and user-centered translation. Email. [email protected] Contact. Tiina Tuominen School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies 33014 University of Tampere Finland Manuscript received April 23, 2015; revised July 24, 2015; accepted September 7, 2015.