MASARYK UNIVERSITY IN BRNO
FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
DAVID KONEČNÝ
CHALLENGES IN LOCALIZING THE MASARYK UNIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM AND WEBSITES
B.A. MAJOR THESIS
SUPERVISOR: PHDR. JARMILA FICTUMOVÁ
2006
I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
1 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Localization Theory...... 6 2.1 Introduction ...... 6 2.1.1 Terminology Used...... 6 2.1.2. Translation...... 7 2.2. Translation and Localization...... 7 2.3. A Historical Overview...... 8 2.4. Software and Website Localization...... 9 2.5. The Need for Website Localization...... 10 3. Issues in Website Localization...... 12 3.1. Introduction ...... 12 3.2. Technical Issues...... 12 3.2.1. Text...... 12 3.2.2. Images and Multimedia ...... 14 3.2.3. Conclusion...... 14 3.3. Adaptation ...... 14 3.3.1. Linguistic Issues...... 14 3.3.2. Culture-Specific Issues...... 17 3.3.3. Conclusion...... 18 4. Localization Tools...... 19 4.1 Introduction ...... 19 4.2. Brief History and Overview ...... 19 4.3. CAT Tools...... 20 4.3.1. TM tools...... 20 4.3.2. Software Localization Tools...... 21 4.3.3. Other Tools...... 21 4.4. Choosing a Tool...... 22 4.4.1. Criteria...... 22 4.4.2. Choosing a Tool for Localizing the MU Information System and Websites ...23 4.4.3. Meeting the Criteria...... 24 4.5. Localization with SDL Trados 2006 ...... 25 4.6. Conclusion...... 30 5. Masaryk University Websites...... 31 5.1. Introduction ...... 31 5.2. Historical Background...... 31 5.3. Structure...... 31 5.3.1. IRIS MU...... 31 5.3.2. Masaryk University Information System (IS MU)...... 32 5.3.3. Masaryk University Websites – A Selection...... 33 5.4. Current State of Localization into English ...... 34 5.4.1. Websites...... 34 5.4.2. IS MU...... 36
2 6. Survey ...... 37 6.1. Objectives ...... 37 6.2. Description...... 37 6.2.1. Creating the Survey...... 37 6.2.2. The Target Group...... 38 6.2.3. Versions...... 39 6.3. Results ...... 39 6.3.1. Personal Data...... 39 6.3.2. Languages Spoken...... 40 6.3.3. Acquiring Information...... 40 6.3.4. Websites...... 41 6.3.5. IS MU...... 43 6.4. Note ...... 46 7. Conclusion ...... 47 8. Bibliography...... 48 9. List of Figures ...... 51 10. Appendix: Survey Screenshots...... 52
3 1. Introduction
This thesis attempts to bring attention to the issue of localizing the Masaryk University Information System and websites. International students and teachers currently at Masaryk University use its websites on a daily basis. Prospective students from abroad searching for information about our alma mater likewise depend on the content of web pages. Unfortunately, a great majority of foreigners at Masaryk University as well as the greater part of those interested in coming to Brno from abroad do not speak the mother tongue of the university’s founder Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk – Czech. Masaryk University is on its way to becoming a truly international institute; however, much work still remains to be done to fully achieve this goal. One of the crucial steps is making information accessible to people from outside the university as well as those who – although studying or teaching in Brno – may not understand Czech and would prefer to access the various university websites in their own native tongue. Sadly, recreating the original Czech-language sites in many languages does not seem to be a feasible alternative. Therefore it is essential to incorporate such a language which will suit the largest group of users; this language happens to be English. In order to obtain the desired English version of the university websites, many issues will have to be dealt with. These are dealt with in the thesis: The first part of the thesis introduces localization, explaining its principles, historical development, and constituent fields, one of which is website localization. Website localization itself is elaborated on in the next part of the thesis. Its technical, linguistic and cultural aspects are explored with particular reference to the websites at Masaryk University. Practical aspects of localization are described next, with the focus shifting from theory to the tools necessary for attempting such as extensive a project as the localization of the websites at MU undoubtedly is. A step-by-step procedure is also described. The websites themselves – with special attention devoted to the Information System – are described in the fourth part of the thesis. Problematic areas are assessed and recommendations are made. The last part of the thesis features the results of a survey devised to probe the needs and requirements of international students and teachers and determine which of the websites
4 at Masaryk University are in need of localization. The survey also elicits comments from individual respondents. This thesis offers a set of guidelines which could perhaps be taken into consideration during the process of localizing websites at Masaryk University.
5 2. Localization Theory
2.1 Introduction
Localization may seem to be a modern procedure in some way, yet it is by no means a novelty. Ever since texts were first translated, the translator’s job was to make them understandable in another language: besides translating words and sentences, it may have also been unavoidable to clarify cultural contexts and similar issues with which the target reader was not acquainted.
Currently, localization refers to a specialized process, often incorporating technology into the translation process. Bert Esselink summarizes the process: “In a nutshell localization revolves around combining language and technology to produce a product that can cross cultural and language barriers. No more, no less” (Esselink, Evolution 1).
2.1.1 Terminology Used
First of all, several terms must be explained: localization, internationalization, and globalization. The Localisation Industry Standards Association (LISA) provides the following definitions: “Internationalization: Internationalization is the process of generalizing a product so that it can handle multiple languages and cultural conventions without the need for redesign. Internationalization takes place at the level of program design and document development.” “Localization: Localization involves taking a product and making it linguistically and culturally appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language) where it will be used and sold.” “Globalization: Globalization addresses all of the enterprise issues associated with making a company truly global. For the globalization of products and services this involves integrating all of the internal and external business functions with marketing, sales, and customer support in the world market.” In A Practical Guide to Localization Bert Esselink gives us a definition used by LISA in 2000: “Globalization addresses the business issues associated with taking a product global.
6 In the globalization of high-tech products this involves integrating localization throughout a company, after proper internationalization and product design, as well as marketing, sales, and support in the world market” (Esselink, Guide 4).
It is common to find the following abbreviations: “L10n” and “I18n” for localization and internationalization respectively. The numbers refer to the number of digits omitted between the first and last letter. A less common – though still used – abbreviation is “G11n” which stands for globalization.
2.1.2. Translation
Since localization and connected terms have been described above, a definition of translation is supplied as well; however, as there is no standard definition, two have been chosen at random. J. C. Catford writes that translation is “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL)” (Catford 20). Peter Newmark provides us with another definition of translation: “rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text” (Newmark 5). Interestingly enough, both of these definitions use the word ‘text’.
2.2. Translation and Localization
In reply to a questionnaire at an online conference, Minako O’Hagan supplied localization expert Anthony Pym with the following explanation and image: “Translation […] can be placed as the core of both localization and globalization. […] Localization [is now] treated as a new form of translation.”
7 Globalization
Localization
Translation
Fig. 1. Interrelationship of translation, localization and globalization
If – judging from the graphical representation above – translation is a component of localization, what additional elements does localization contain? Or – as Anthony Pym himself puts it, if “localization = translation + factor X” (Pym Translation and Localization), what then is factor X? Pym explains that this hypothetical factor X consists of several components, or rather thematic groups: internationalization, adaptation, and wholly technical or market-oriented matters such as product re-engineering, testing, and management. These issues are described further on.
2.3. A Historical Overview
In the 1980s the first computers ventured out of the computer lab into the hands of the common user. This shift called for much innovation in both hardware and software development as the user – no longer a program engineer or IT expert – needed a user-friendly machine and interface to work with. However, the move from the computer lab to the private office was not the only change; another equally important event was the spread of computers to users outside of the United States where the IT business had originated. If the computer was to be of service to those who did not speak English, it was essential that it communicate with the given user in his or her mother tongue. This meant that some modification had to be carried out as regards hardware (e.g. language-specific keys on keyboards), but most significant changes took place in the software sector (text editors had to
8 recognize and process characters peculiar to a given locale, whole user interfaces had to be localized, etc). For the most part software developers kept localization separate from the development itself; internationalization only appeared when software developers began to meet the localizers’ requirements concerning e.g. international computing standards support. Throughout the 1980s, localization was done mostly by in-house teams; only in the early 1990s did software publishers realize that all localization work could be outsourced, thus relieving them of the burden of extra work. Newly established localization vendors filled the niche between translation companies and software publishers: a localization company needed elements of both to function properly. The job of a localization vendor included localizing the software itself as well as any or all of the accessories: online help, online documentation and printed material.
With competition mounting many small localization companies merged to create those currently at work around the world, the largest ones being Lionbridge (recently acquiring Bowne Global Solutions), Titan Corporation, SDL International, etc. Translation tools were also modified to meet the demand: specialized localization tools were developed to extend the possibilities offered by traditional TMs.
Moreover, the massive rise of the internet in the 1990s added a new dimension to localization. It was no longer just software which was in need of tailoring to the language requirements of foreign users: websites on the internet were in need of localization.
2.4. Software and Website Localization
Software and website localization may be considered the two main branches of localization. Although they may differ in many details, the process of localization remains virtually the same. As Bert Esselink points out, “Web sites [contain] more and more software functionality and software applications increasingly [deploy] a Web interface” (Esselink, Evolution 3), blurring the boundaries even more.
9 2.5. The Need for Website Localization
Do we need website localization? A few facts and figures will help us gain insight into the current situation and development.
The internet was first created in 1973 by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), run by the US Department of Defense; eleven years later internet services were turned over to the private sector and government agencies. Since it was developed in the United States, it is only natural that the language the internet was intended for was English.
While in 1995 there were no more than 45 million internet users worldwide, their numbers skyrocketed to 420 million by 2000 and surpassed 1 billion in December 2005. At the end of 2005, 30% of the one billion users spoke English. Another 13% spoke Chinese, 8.5% spoke Japanese and 6.3% spoke Spanish. When compared to the figures from 2000, one can see that radical changes have taken place over the course of the last decade: in 1995 only 10% of all internet users spoke a language other than English, five years later their number grew to 50%, and by 2005 they formed an overwhelming 70% majority.
Top Ten Languages on the Internet (December 2005)
English (311 mil) Chinese (132 mil) Japanese (86 mil) Spanish (64 mil) German (57 mil) French (41 mil) Korean (34 mil) Portuguese (32 mil) Italian (29 mil) Russian (24 mil) Other (208 mil)
Fig. 2.
In view of this it should now be evident that localizing websites into languages other than English is becoming more than a necessity – it is simply inevitable.
10 However, this situation can also be viewed from a different angle. Generally speaking English is the international lingua franca in many fields, e.g. trade, commerce, diplomacy, politics, science, technology, even advertising. This way, English functions as a mediator, facilitating communication between people coming from different language and cultural backgrounds, who would otherwise have no language in common. In the academic world, as in the world of international business or the world of technology, the ability to communicate in English is necessary each time one wants to address an audience outside his or her language group. In case English is used, not only does one address people in English-speaking countries, but he or she is reaching far beyond – reaching out to the whole world. This kind of mediated communication is only possible due to the fact that “speakers of English as a second language probably outnumber those who speak it as a first language.” Also, “one out of four of the world’s population speak English to some level of competence; demand from the other three-quarters is increasing” (British Council). It is increasing, of course, as a result of the above-mentioned manner of communication. Naturally, a large part of international communication is done via the internet; if one is to share information with the whole world, it can hardly be done in a local language. It should now become clear that localizing websites into English is as important as localizing English websites into other languages.
11 3. Issues in Website Localization
3.1. Introduction
Let us now return to Anthony Pym’s rendering of localization and apply it to website localization only, specifically keeping in mind the requirements of localizing MU websites. It has been mentioned that Pym sees localization as consisting of translation and ‘factor X’. Factor X is composed of internationalization (preparing a product for localization – this includes technical aspects such as character encoding), adaptation (i.e. adaptation of culture-specific elements) and matters such as product re-engineering, testing, and management, which are done only after the initial localization phase. Pym’s first two points will be the focus of the following pages.
3.2. Technical Issues
Internationalization should make a text or document localization-ready. Therefore it is quite logical that it take place before the actual localization starts. Having a fully internationalized (and therefore localizable) document at the outset is the first step towards a successful outcome.
3.2.1. Text
3.2.1.1. Encoding
Computers record characters as codes; unfortunately a number of character sets such as ASCII, ANSI, ISO and Unicode have developed in the past, causing numerous compatibility problems. The default character encoding for HTML is ISO-8859-1, also known as ISO Latin-1. A special character setting tag determines the settings for the whole document; the example below specifies that the characters should be read according to the Central/Eastern European norm:
12 The lang attribute, which uses an abbreviation for each language can be used to override the meta tag:
This example indicates that all subsequent text will be set as American English. Esselink strongly recommends that Unicode (i.e. one of its subsets: UTF-8, UTF-16, or UTF-321) be used at all times. “The Unicode standard is destined to replace the ASCII and other single- and multi-byte character sets currently in existence,” (Esselink, Guide 31) he writes, adding that “the main advantages of Unicode support are the ability to represent all text with one unambiguous encoding, and the ease with which multilingual text can be supported” (Esselink, Guide 32).
3.2.1.2. Text Expansion and Contraction
While localization from English into other languages calls for adding extra space, problems will hardly occur when localizing Czech text into English. Text localized into English tends to be shorter than the Czech source, therefore the layout does not have to be altered and text in buttons and boxes requires truncation only occasionally.
3.2.1.3. Structure
A webpage should be intuitively handled and user-friendly. For an English-speaking user this may mean including icons and separate windows for separate tasks. For an English- speaking user visiting one of the websites at a Czech university this also means that e.g. a language choice button should be included, preferably on every page as a given page may very well be accessed through a search engine rather than from the home page.
3.2.1.4. Note
Fortunately, many of the hardest tasks of technical nature are circumvented by the relative similarity of Czech and English: there is no need for double byte language enablement as would be the case with Asian languages, no bidirectional language requirement
1 UTF-8 stands for 8-bit Unicode Transfer Format, etc.
13 posed by e.g. Arabic or Hebrew and no need to rework sorting order for characters required by Scandinavian or Asian languages.
3.2.2. Images and Multimedia
Obviously, text is not the only kind of content to be localized. Logos and elaborate headings, images and multimedia features designed to attract attention, screen captures used in help files – all of these must be localized as well. If possible, graphics should always be independent of text: storing each component as a separate layer enables the localizer to work with the text only. Arrangements making this possible should clearly be done when the web pages are being built in their native language – a certain amount of foresight is therefore necessary.
3.2.3. Conclusion
It is impossible to create a list of all technical issues which have to be dealt with in the process of localization. Luckily, localizing from virtually any language into English is easier than the reverse process – at least regarding the technical elements which must be tackled during the course of the project.
3.3. Adaptation
Pym’s second point has been split here into two further sub-sections: linguistic issues and cultural issues. The two are to a certain extent interwoven and are separated here only for the sake of clarity.
3.3.1. Linguistic Issues
3.3.1.1. Selecting a Language Variety
14 A previous chapter has already justified the process of website localization as being indispensable to communication on the internet, the same chapter established English as the best target language for the future localization of MU websites. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a standard English, quite the contrary: many varieties of English are spoken around the world. One of these varieties must be chosen as the target language for the sake of consistency. Which variety will then best function as the target language into which all Masaryk University websites including the Information System should be localized? Omitting most varieties and concentrating solely on two, let us focus on American English and British English. These two varieties are most frequently spoken worldwide and – perhaps more importantly – used on the Internet.
Czech British English American English katalog předmětů course catalogue 873,000 course catalog 10,600,000 podzimní semestr autumn semester/ 747,000 fall semester/ 30,000,000 autumn term2 fall term zápis enrolment 14,900,000 enrollment 132,000,000 Fig. 3. Google occurrences of selected terms3
Although American English terms occur online more frequently, this should not be the only criterion. An important factor is usage in non-native European academic contexts, i.e. universities in Europe outside of the United Kingdom. Although universities which received the EUNIS Elite Award for their administrative information systems should exhibit a certain level of language awareness and perhaps act as a language guarantee, the English versions of their websites do not adhere to a single variety but are rather quite inconsistent as far as variety-specific terminology and spelling is concerned. For example, all four versions of fall/autumn semester/term are to be found on the websites of Helsinki University of Technology
2 There are often three terms in a British academic year, therefore these are hardly standard “British English” terms. 3 The word ‘university’ was added to each query to ensure that the desired word or phrase appeared in relevant context.
15 In case Masaryk University decides to undertake the process of localization, one variety must be singled out and used throughout the entire project. Neither variety – American or British English – is an incorrect choice, provided only one is used: for the sake of consistency, clarity, and accuracy.
3.3.1.2. Consistency
Using one variety throughout the localization project ensures correct use of spelling and terminology. This concerns mainly the central, university-wide websites as a strict policy can hardly be imposed on individual faculties and departments which are to a certain extent autonomous.
3.3.1.3. Accuracy
A term must be accurate if it is to be understood correctly by users who only understand the localized text. There may not even be one-to-one correspondence of terms among varieties, again heightening the importance of selecting one for the translation. Localization – i.e. adaptation (of a product) to a target locale – must be taken literally here: it is not enough to translate into something as vague as ‘English’. It is vital that terms including e.g. names of administrative bodies and offices or academic titles are localized in such a way that they are understandable to speakers of one variety (while referring to real entities and titles correctly); in case this is not done properly, confusion on a grand scale may be the result. Although some terms do seem international, this is rarely the case. Furthermore, localizing terms may be possible in one direction, but not in the other. Although ‘profesor’ (Czech) translates to English as ‘professor’, ‘professor’ (English) cannot be said to form an equivalent translation of ‘profesor’ (Czech). Moreover, there are inter-variety differences between American and British usage, illustrating that there indeed is no one-to-one concordance. A graphical representation – rendered according to David Crystal – follows:
16 Professor UK US Professor Full Professor Reader Associate Professor Senior Lecturer Lecturer Assistant Professor Fig. 4.
3.3.1.4. Czenglish
When translating terminology into English, it is vital that the localizer is aware of the fact that although some Czech terms may appear international enough to justify using a seemingly similar term in English (i.e. a so-called false friend), this is rarely a suitable solution. The translation should help authentic English-speaking users, not speakers of Czech.
Czech used at MU English used at MU English term bakalářské studium bachelor studies 98,000 undergraduate 27,000,000 studies Fig. 5. One example of Czenglish
3.3.2. Culture-Specific Issues
Date Format: Inconsistency in date format may easily lead to confusion, therefore ambiguous formats like “6. 4. 2006” or “4/6/2006” should not be used. The best way to ensure clarity is to use e.g. “April 6, 2006” or “6 April 2006”
Calendar: Unlike in the Czech Republic, the week starts with a Sunday in English- speaking countries; this should be taken into account by sites which include a graphical representation of a calendar.
Time: Although it may seem unimportant, office hours of e.g. the Office for International Studies should specify the time zone.
Phone Numbers: Phone numbers should always include the country code to simplify access from outside of the Czech Republic.
17
Addresses: All addresses posted online should likewise be entered in full, including the zip code and country name.
Numbers: Czech and English number formats differ: decimal separators, etc. American numerical convention uses a comma to separate sequences of three digits whereas a comma serves as a decimal point in Europe.
Currency: If possible, prices (accommodation in dormitories, etc.) should be given in currency other than Czech crowns; simply converting Czech crowns to Euros may be a sufficient alternative.
3.3.3. Conclusion
It is essential that all above mentioned criteria – and any which turn up during the localization process and call for linguistic or cultural adaptation – are considered and incorporated. What this means for translating the Masaryk University Information System and websites is that the localization should ideally be carried out by a knowledgeable bilingual Czech and English speaker and then – even more importantly – proofread and checked by one or more native speakers who have a deep understanding of both the academic milieu and the target culture.
18 4. Localization Tools
4.1 Introduction
Difficult choices are an everyday part of a translator’s life. However, if the proper choices are made early on during the translation process, or – even better – before the translation process itself actually commences, many problems can be avoided entirely and many others can be minimized. Among others, when beginning a project, the translator is faced with the dilemma of how to handle the project technically. From the day that the association of computers and language was first thought of as an advantage for translators, pen and paper instantly became obsolete articles in the field.
4.2. Brief History and Overview
Programs designed to help translators with their work were first developed in the 1960s. However, these were all early attempts at something not mastered to this day: Machine Translation (MT). Two decades later, the first Computer-Aided Translation (CAT) tools emerged. An overview of the different trends in translation is to be seen in a graphical representation below:
Mechanization Human Involvement
Fully Automatic Human-Aided Machine-Aided Human High Quality Machine Human Translation Translation Translation Translation (HT)
Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT)
Fig. 6. Trends in translation technology. (Austermühl 15)
19 Since the perfect MT tool is not yet a dream come true and the pen and paper of days gone by are sadly out of place in our modern high-speed world, only the two categories of translation representing the golden mean – Human-Aided Machine Translation (HAMT) and Machine-Aided Human Translation (MAHT) – are possible alternatives.
4.3. CAT Tools
However, CAT tools are hardly a coherent group. Their only common denominator is the interaction between humans and computers. For our purposes, CAT tools are best divided into two groups: Translation Memory tools and Software Localization tools. CAT tools help the translator by utilizing a common feature: the translation memory. Translated segments are stored in a translation memory and offered to the translator when the same or similar segment appears in the source text. Short and non-repetitive texts can be hardly translated this way; a TM tool is useful only when the document is more extensive and repetitive:
Czech Text Total TUs4, words Repetitiveness All Help files in the IS 9,019 TUs; 95,822 w. 16% (1,839 TUs, 15,042 w.)
Translation memory tools either have a native interface or run within e.g. text editors like Microsoft Word. The translation memory itself is a database which can be managed using a Terminology Management tool – specific to one TM tool and commonly an integral part of it.
4.3.1. TM tools
4 TU stands for Translation Unit – a sentence or item in a list separated by common delimiters. 5 Repetitions were counted using the ‘Analyze’ function in Trados Translator’s Workbench using default settings
20 Common translation memory tools are e.g. SDL Trados Translator’s Workbench, Star Transit, Atril Déjà Vu, or Wordfast by Champollion and partners; SDL Trados and Déjà Vu being most prominent on the world market.
4.3.2. Software Localization Tools
Software Localization tools, as the term implies, are generally used to translate software. They combine the advantages of a TM tool with software localization specific features like designing the user interface, resizing buttons, etc. They may be split into two categories according to the environment they are created for. Tools like Corel Catalyst, Applocalize, RD-Wintrans and Passolo are Windows-compatible, while Appleglot and Powerglot were developed specifically for Macintosh.
4.3.3. Other Tools
4.3.3.1. Tracking Tools
A localization project does not end when the initial translation is successfully finished. Websites change much more frequently than software, often on a daily basis, therefore it is vital to keep the site up to date – in all languages. New content should appear on all versions of a website as soon as possible, ideally simultaneously. Tracking tools record changes taking place on a given website and automatically transfer new or updated content to the translator. Tracking tools are usually integrated with a TM tool.
4.3.3.2. Word Counting Tools
While not a part of the translating process itself, Word Counting tools such as CATCount, PDF Count or WebBudget are a necessity in calculating the price for a translation. CATCount can handle many different file formats, while WebBudget is designed specifically for documents written in HTML and other markup languages.
21 4.4. Choosing a Tool
As mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, a translator must make a decision regarding the tool which is to be used for any given project. In most cases, a translator uses one TM tool for much of his or her career due to the fact that the translation memory – to which new segments are being added all the time – is usually peculiar to one tool.
However, there are several guidelines which help with selecting the appropriate type of tool and ultimately the one specific tool best suitable for the job. The following criteria should be kept in mind: file format support, language support, translator support, network support, alignment support and – last but not least – costs.
4.4.1. Criteria
File Format Support: Most tools can handle file formats supported by text editors as well as those written in markup languages (HTML, XML and SGML) or files that have been created in desktop publishing programs like QuarkXPress, Adobe FrameMaker or Interleaf. However, it is necessary to check whether a given tool supports the source file format. Bert Esselink provides the following table for choosing a suitable translation tool according to file format:
File Type Translation Tool Comment Online help, HTML, or Translation memory tool Examples: Trados, Déjà Vu documentation or SDLX Online help, HTML, or Translation memory tool Examples: Logos, Systran documentation written with combined with machine structured authoring translation Software binary files – .exe Software localization tool Examples: Corel Catalyst, or .dll (standard) RC-WinTrans Software binary files (non- Native development Examples: CodeWarrior standard) environment Software text-only resource Software localization tool, or Examples: Corel Catalyst, files (standard) native development Visual C++, Visual Basic environment Fig. 8. Tool selection according to file format. (Esselink, Guide 361)
22 Language Support: The tool should support all languages and language combinations used in the project, taking into account possible future development (i.e. further translation into more languages).
Translator Support: In case a translator is accustomed to working with a specific tool and moreover has a sufficient TM database, it is advisable to make use of this.
Network Support: Extensive projects may call for several translators; in this case it is vital that a TM database may be shared either within a local area network or over the internet.
Alignment Support: A TM tool should facilitate the alignment of previous translations.
Cost: Although some TM tools such as Wordfast are downloadable free of charge, most are rather expensive. Therefore the use of a TM tool should be considered with this aspect in mind as well.
4.4.2. Choosing a Tool for Localizing the MU Information System and Websites
The objective of the following section is selecting a tool which would best facilitate the project of localizing the MU Information System and websites.
Although localization is the main focus of this thesis, a localization tool may not be the best alternative for the project. Currently, the majority of these tools specialize in software, incorporating many features which are absolutely unnecessary when one is working with websites. Therefore, the best option for website localization is a traditional TM tool. It is essential to realize that TM tools have made much progress; they are no longer compatible only with Microsoft Word and similar text editors and for the most part are no longer the cumbersome programs they used to be. Modern TM tools are efficient, versatile, and relatively user-friendly.
23 4.4.3. Meeting the Criteria
Since website localization is the issue, it is essential that the chosen tool is compatible with markup languages. Fortunately, virtually all tools are able to do so. Some have developed special applications (Trados), others import HTML, XML or SGML files directly (Déjà Vu, Transit).
Languages are not an issue, as all three tools support Czech, English and many other languages – usually all languages supported by Microsoft Windows. In case previously translated texts exist, it is possible to align them using an alignment tool such as WinAlign (Trados); in case a TM tool has already been used and a translation memory exists, it is possible to share it via TMX (Translation Memory Exchange), a format which enables sharing translation memories between different CAT tools. In either case, translated text can be reused and incorporated in the translation memory. Terminology management tools are then used to service the TM itself; individual TM tools have their own terminology management tools: MultiTerm 7 and PhraseFinder 2005 (SDL Trados), TermStar (Transit), and TermWatch (Déjà Vu). An extensive localization project like the one in question will undoubtedly call for more than one or two translators to carry it out. It is vital that e.g. terminology is kept consistent throughout the project – for this purpose the selected tool must facilitate online/network sharing of the translation memory. All three tools support this. The two external factors may have to decide: the price and whether a translator/localizer has experience working with a given tool or not. CAT tools tend to be rather expensive. A number of open-source tools including e.g. Wordfast or OmegaT are free; some others offer trial versions or demos. Most TM and software localization tools, however, are costly: a basic version of SDL Trados 2006 costs $895, Déjà Vu X offers several options (Standard to Workgroup) ranging from €490 to €1,490. Depending on the size of the project, return on investment is a matter of weeks, in some cases even days. Translating the websites at Masaryk University is a localization project which definitely justifies the purchase of any TM tool. In the end it is up to the localizer to decide which tool to use; the following part of the thesis will describe the localization process using SDL Trados 2006.
24 4.5. Localization with SDL Trados 2006
SDL Trados 2006 is the latest solution produced by SDL International (previously TRADOS and SDL). As HTML is the general file format, TagEditor will be the tool of choice instead of only working with Translator’s Workbench. However, before the localization itself is begun, several things are to be done. Presumably the translator has some knowledge of the field, therefore he or she may proceed to assembling a translation memory. In case a translation memory containing the necessary segments for the project exists – regardless of the tool it was originally created for – it can be imported into MultiTerm directly. In case there is no translation, it is wise to assemble one from previously localized documents using WinAlign.
Fig. 9. Aligning HTML files with Trados WinAlign
Although alignment may seem to be a time-consuming, even unnecessary activity, the effort will eventually pay off in the end. In the worst scenario there is no TM and no previously localized documents – therefore, a localizer is forced to start from scratch and create a TM anew. As the project progresses, the TM in MultiTerm will grow thanks to the inbuilt active recognition function and offer the localizer more and more matches.
25 Source Localized Texts Texts
Alignment
Import
Existing Translation Translation Memory Memory
New Translator New Source Text & Localized Text TM tool
Fig. 10. Extracting Terminology
Once the terminology mining phase is over and all that could have been leveraged and incorporated into the TM is in place, the localization itself begins. The document is opened in
TagEditor and the ‘Open/Get’ button is pressed for the first time.
26
Fig. 11. Working with TagEditor: Features
TagEditor automatically locks all tags in order to prevent unwanted modification. As a rule markup should not be altered; however it is sometimes necessary to modify or erase tags, or even change text within a tag. An ‘Edit Tag’ function facilitates such adjustments provided that Tag Protection is turned off first. Fonts and other elements are automatically copied from the source into the target document, which allows the localizer to concentrate on the text only. Matching Translation Units stored in the database are offered for reuse as needed – Translator’s Workbench determines and notifies the localizer whether a match is an exact or a fuzzy one:
27
Fig. 12. Fuzzy match in TagEditor
Fig. 13. Exact match in TagEditor
While a document is being localized it is saved as a TRADOStag Document (*.ttx); on finishing it can be easily saved as HTML. Provided that no translation units are opened, a document may be previewed at any point – either the source or target version or both at one time. The preview presents the
28 document the way it will actually look when finished. If no tags, fonts, etc. have been modified, the finished document should look exactly like the source save for the change of language.
Fig. 14. Bilingual preview mode in TagEditor
Static HTML content is quite simple to localize, as it can be easily extracted and stored. Problems begin when website content is stored in a database and generated dynamically. In that event, it may be necessary for the localizer to either show a considerable amount of technical expertise or collaborate with experts in the field.
Overall, it is vital that the localizer have excellent command of skills more important than the mere technical aspects of a localization project: skills including complete mastery of both languages, exceptional knowledge of the field, and a deep understanding of the target culture.
29 4.6. Conclusion
A tool should stay what it is meant to be – a device aiding the translator or localizer in the process of localization. This process cannot be left to a tool alone to translate because of its nature: the localized text is meant to serve people. Therefore people should play their part in its recreation in another language.
30 5. Masaryk University Websites
5.1. Introduction
The following chapter describes the target of the proposed localization project: websites at Masaryk University. Special attention is given to the Information System.
5.2. Historical Background
The Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia) was officially connected to the internet on February 13th 1992; however, as early as 1991, Masaryk University had already made electronic mail available to its users. The
5.3. Structure
5.3.1. IRIS MU
It is not the purpose of this thesis to provide a full description of all information and communication technology (ICT) in use throughout Masaryk University. Rather, as the needs of international users are placed in the limelight, the focus is narrowed down to the websites indispensable for non-Czech-speaking students’ and teachers’ usage. A short and concise description will, however, make orientation in the complex labyrinth of web space much easier.
31 All university-wide ICT matters are handled by the Institute of Computer Science (ICS); the core system to which all other systems relate is the Integrated Management and Information System (IRIS), composed of the following four sections: Internet presentation of MU
5.3.2. Masaryk University Information System (IS MU)
The central web-based system handling study-related agenda is the Information System
5.3.2.1. EUNIS Award
In 2005 the IS received the EUNIS Elite Award for excellence in implementing Administrative Information Systems for Higher Education. The award definitely highlights the technical excellence achieved at MU as it is truly reserved only for the best administrative systems: Masaryk University is only the seventh institute of higher learning to receive it. To date, three primarily English-speaking universities (Oxford Brookes University, London School of Economics sponsored by Oracle, University of Manchester) and three non-English-speaking institutes (University of Porto, Helsinki University of Technology, Graz University of Technology) have received the same award. Since their administration systems are considered to be Europe’s finest as regards technical and functional aspects, they should presumably also display a high level of language support.
32 However, this is hardly so. None of the British universities have a site featuring a language other than English and no mention of developing a multilingual interface is made in their EUNIS Elite Award applications. The University of Porto application
5.3.3. Masaryk University Websites – A Selection
When “Masaryk University” is entered into a search engine, the first link to appear is
6 The list only mentions sites deemed relevant to the needs of international users.
33 Office for International Studies
5.4. Current State of Localization into English
5.4.1. Websites
It is difficult to determine to what extent individual websites are actually translated; however, most MU websites exhibit an English-language version of some sort. This inconsistency in localization alone causes an array of problems. Following is a list of “translation stages” found within Masaryk University web space.
Full Translation: At the time, there are few wholly bilingual sites at MU, although e.g. the Office for International Students is approaching this point. The website of the International Student Club is run primarily in English.
Translated Extract: Having a summarized version of a given site translated into English is perhaps not a bad way to provide users with the most necessary information in case it is not possible to furnish them with a full version, or in case the site is presumably accessed by few international users. Quite surprisingly, the online version of the university magazine muni.cz – which should to a certain extent act as a representative platform for the university – contains scarcely any news in English.
Inconsistent Translation: Using terminology consistently should be a matter of course. In spite of this, even some of the most important websites, although they may be well translated apart from that, disregard this vital issue. Fig. 15c: inconsistent usage of ‘Rector’s Office’/‘Rectorate’ within one single page.
34
“Surface Translation”: Localizing websites must be done fully: in case one starts searching for information on the English-language version of a website, it is indeed quite disappointing to find out that a language barrier bars the way further on. A language choice icon which – when clicked – has virtually no effect is also of absolutely no use. Unfortunately a large part of the English versions of MU websites are currently in this stage of localization.
“Mixed Translation”: The worst scenario is having one website in both English and Czech at one time. This usually helps no one; besides, it does not look professional at all. Figs. 15a and 15b: A hardly usable English version of the Accommodation and Catering Management website.
No Translation: Sites which are rarely accessed by foreign users are sometimes left with only a Czech-language version (e.g. some department websites, bydleni.muni.cz, Rector’s Office). This is undoubtedly bound to change in the future.
Fig. 15a, b, c. Problematic English versions
35 5.4.2. IS MU
The IS is currently being translated by Michal Brandejs, head of the Information System developers, using native tools developed specifically for the project. Although several sections have been translated to date, localizing the whole IS is a task for more than one localizer. Brandejs himself estimates that the system currently contains roughly 1,200 standard pages, i.e. 2,160,000 characters. The English version of the Personal Administration is available in the authorized section at
36 6. Survey
6.1. Objectives
If the objective of the thesis is to find out how to best adapt the Information System and other Masaryk University websites to the needs of international users, it is essential that users belonging to this target group are actually contacted. Their experience should be drawn on and their requirements and needs determined and analyzed.
6.2. Description
6.2.1. Creating the Survey
An internet-based survey suggested itself as probably the most efficient method of gathering and analyzing data. It was also the most convenient due to the nature of my target group – international students and teachers currently studying or working at Masaryk University. Since all MU students and employees should be reachable via email, a web-based survey is in theory available to everyone. The following passage describes several aspects of designing and releasing this internet survey.
After ascertaining that a web-based survey is indeed the right choice for mapping the target group, several decisions had to be made: first of all a suitable provider had to be chosen. There are hundreds of online survey hosting sites, but many of these are too complicated for the task – some require programming skills, others require that their own software be used. Generally speaking, survey hosting sites are rather expensive – either charging by the week (e.g. SuperSurvey
37 A relatively small-scale survey such as this one does not call for the usage of a sophisticated and costly tool. SurveyMonkey
6.2.2. The Target Group
There is a total of 30,213 students at Masaryk University, 2,098 of who are not citizens of the Czech Republic.7 However, a great majority of these are citizens of Slovakia. Since the Slovak language is similar enough to Czech to guarantee that generally speaking students from Slovakia experience hardly any language-based difficulties in understanding the university websites, they were excluded from the list of possible respondents. According to Jitka Brandejsová, there are currently 587 students claiming other than Czech or Slovak citizenship. (Brandejsová)
7 MU Annual Report for 2004
38 The email addresses, to which an introductory letter containing the hyperlink to the survey was posted, were procured from the Office for International Studies and from the foreign offices of individual faculties. Of the approximately 300 international students who were asked to take the survey, 30 responded (i.e. 10%) As far as teachers are concerned, there are few foreign lecturers currently teaching at Masaryk University. Furthermore, most of them have been living here for many years; consequently, the language barrier the survey was designed to examine has all but disappeared or at least substantially weakened for them. All the same, they are a significant source of information. The survey succeeded in eliciting responses from only 6 of the 50 who received the introductory letter; therefore the amount of data provided by them is not sufficient to be worked into tables. However, their comments and views will definitely be included.
6.2.3. Versions
Two versions of the same survey were developed: one for international students, one for teachers. The questions were very much the same, although e.g. the selection of websites for evaluation differed. Four introductory questions asked the respondent to specify his or her identity, eight complex questions then gathered information regarding their experience with MU websites and the IS.
6.3. Results
6.3.1. Personal Data
Of the 30 students who took the survey, 16 stated that they had been living in the Czech Republic for a period of time not exceeding one year. The average time spent in the Czech Republic was 15.62 months and the average time of study at Masaryk University was 10.36 months.
39 6.3.2. Languages Spoken
Languages other than English spoken by those who answered the survey were: German (9 speakers), French (8), Spanish (5), Greek (5), Russian (4), Hindi (3) and – listed alphabetically – African dialects, Arabic, Bulgarian, Croatian, Danish, Farsi, Hindi, Icelandic, Polish, Portuguese, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, and Urdu, with no more than one or two speakers each. Czech was mentioned no less than ten times; however, many of these mentioned a limited level of capability. In case any Masaryk University websites will ever be translated into other languages, it is of course essential that a large-scale survey be carried out beforehand to determine which languages to favor; however, even a small-scale survey as this one did show that certain languages are wider-used than others. It is no coincidence that the three languages most frequently spoken by the survey respondents (German, French, Spanish) are three of the four most localization is done into, the so-called FIGS.
6.3.3. Acquiring Information
The survey showed that information about Masaryk University is usually gathered from two major sources: speaking to previous visitors and viewing a Masaryk University website. Although word of mouth is still considered the best means of eliciting information prior to coming to Brno, a full third of respondents marked websites as their information source.
Gathering Information about MU
References from previous visitors An MU webpage Other (university partnership, etc.) Read about MU (other than internet) Foreign studies information meeting Called Rector’s Office, Faculty, etc.
024681012
Fig. 16.
40 6.3.4. Websites
6.3.4.1. Frequency of Access and Satisfaction with Translation
By far the most frequently used website of all is the Masaryk University Information System. According to the survey, 23% of respondents access the IS several times a day, 45% several times a week and 4% several times a month. No one marked the ‘never’ option. The MU homepage
Frequency of use
IS MU Faculty Homepage Masaryk University homepage Office for International Studies Department Homepage E-learning Systems International Student Club Accommodation and Catering student.muni.cz MU Union catalogue Several times a day bydleni.muni.cz Several times a week Several times a month Rector's Office Seldom @muni.cz Monthly Never
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 17.
Although the IS MU was the most frequently accessed website, the following question asking students to determine whether they thought a site was translated into English to a sufficient extent did not have a very favorable outcome. This is of course due to the fact that a
41 translation of the IS has only been in progress for several months, but the students’ reaction is for the most part a cry for help which should not be ignored: a 65% majority consider the existing translation of the IS to be “somewhat” to “very insufficient”.
Satisfaction with Translation
International Student Club Office for International Studies Masaryk University Homepage Department Homepage E-learning systems Faculty Homepage IS MU Accommodation and Catering student.muni.cz Rector's Office Sufficient Somewhat sufficient bydleni.muni.cz Somewhat insufficient MU Union catalogue Insufficient N/A (never accessed) @muni.cz Monthly
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 18.
This table clearly indicates that attention needs to be devoted to university-wide systems as well as websites run by either individual faculties or by departments, which are run independently of the common systems. Some respondents did express their dissatisfaction, and it was not only students who did so. Teachers would also like to see improvement: “There is huge variety in the quality of the English on MU websites; […] some of [them] have horrendous English”
6.3.4.2. Opinions and Comments
Two last questions concerning websites in general were to elicit feedback on issues perhaps not directly connected to language, but nonetheless of great importance. According to
42 the following table, students are generally satisfied with matters like update frequency, but there seems to be room for improvement in several vital areas such as intuitive handling. Even more importantly, students’ written responses8 specify some problems which may actually lead to the discouragement of prospective students: “On the whole, the websites of MU are too overloaded with written text” or “If you don’t get any help from another person the sites are quite confusing.” Everything was nicely summed up by one respondent who stated that “I think the university is very helpful but the website is not.”
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Opinions about MU Websites Neutral Somewhat disagree Stronly disagree
Frequently updated
Well organized
Provide necessary information
Eye-catching and attractive
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 19.
6.3.5. IS MU
The second part of the survey focused solely on the Information System. Using very much the same questions as in the first part, the respondents were asked to enter information concerning the frequency with which they access the different sections of the IS and what they like or dislike about it.
8 All responses are available on the enclosed CD.
43 6.3.5.1. Frequency of Access
The most frequently used sections were – as expected – Student and Courses. Although every student has access to university email, over a quarter of respondents have never used it. Those who have repeatedly reported problems, indicating that this section is in immediate need of translation: “The mailbox could be translated into English so we would know which button is to reply or forward or delete.” Over 50% of all respondents have never visited eight of the twenty listed sections.
IS MU: Frequency of Use
Courses
Studies
Personal Section
People and Departments
Access
Documents
Bulletin Boards
Cards Several times a day Several times a week File Depository and My Web Several times a month Seldom E-vote and Opinion Poll Never
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % Fig. 20.
44 6.3.5.2. Opinions and Comments
Respondents considered the IS to be very informative, provided they could overcome the language barrier. Most language-related problems were of two kinds: either students simply did not understand: “Please make every page available in English because that is the reason I never use the university website except to check exams, because I don’t understand it” or – perhaps even worse – they confidently entered the English version of a website, only to find that what they were looking for has not been translated: “It was very hard to find information because it starts with English and ends up with Czech!” Those teachers who did not abandon the survey thus far also supplied valuable comments, referring to “too much ‘useless’ information everywhere” and “lots of ‘arcane’ things [which] appear to have no practical relevance to anything.” The fact that many students as well as teachers found “the whole system […] unnecessarily complicated and confusing” hardly makes overcoming the language barrier any easier. Several respondents commented on the technical aspects of the system: “The layout for the site is very poor and not easy to navigate,” “[the] main problem with the IS is not a language one, – it’s structure and design.” etc.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Opinions about IS MU Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Provides all necessary information
Well-structured
Tastefully designed
Handled intuitively
Sufficiently translated into English
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % Fig. 21.
45 6.4. Note
On the whole, Masaryk University offers a very sophisticated network of websites and online services. Only when they are all properly localized into English will international students and teachers be able to fully appreciate this.
46 7. Conclusion
The thesis has described the different aspects of localization, focusing on website localization and attempting to link all theoretical findings to the very real issue of localizing the Masaryk University Information System and websites. The survey – designed to elicit responses from yet another point of view – has also succeeded in generating a substantial amount of feedback. All in all, it is finally possible to answer the introductory query: “How should the Information System and Masaryk University websites be adapted to the needs of non-Czech-speaking users?” That the Information System and websites should be localized was clear from the outset, but the means of doing so had to be addressed. An answer could be formulated as follows: the university websites should be localized as soon as possible, paying close attention to the technical, cultural and linguistic issues. A TM tool should be used to ensure that accurate and consistent terminology is used and to carry out the localization process itself. The most important websites (cf. Survey), especially the Information System should be localized first, although the ultimate goal is a full localization of all websites. International students and teachers as well as the university will indeed profit from an English – and therefore international-user-friendly version of its web pages: students’ and teachers’ lives alike will become much simpler and the university itself will undoubtedly gain international recognition and renown. Obtaining the English version of all websites and systems is also a great asset in one other respect – once localization into English has been carried out, ground will be broken regarding possible future development. Perhaps one day our alma mater will make its websites available in two, three, or even ten languages!
47 8. Bibliography
“Aktualizace Dlouhodobého záměru Masarykovy univerzity v Brně na rok 2006” 9 April 2006.
Austermühl, Frank. Electronic Tools for Traslators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2004.
Brandejsová, Jitka. “Informační systém MU má svoji anglickou verzi a slovník.” muni.cz. Jan. 2006: 4. 5 March 2006. < http://info.muni.cz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=256&Itemid=89>
British Council, The. “Frequently Asked Questions” 12 March 2006
Catford, John Cunnison. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay in Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
“Dlouhodobý záměr Masarykovy univezity v Brně do roku 2010.” 2 April 2006.
Esselink, Bert. A Practical Guide to Localization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.
Esselink, Bert. “The Evolution of Localization.”
Fernández, Noelia C. “Web Site Localisation and Internationalisation: A Case Study.” Diss. City University, 2000.
Graddol, David. The Future of English? Milton Keynes: The English Company (UK) Ltd, 2000. 4 April 2006
48
“Informační systém Masarykovy univerzity v roce 2004 – Výroční zpráva o provozu a vývoji” 6 March 2006
“Information Systems Cooperation in European countries” 3 March 2006
Kohoutková, Jana. “Masaryk University Information Infrastructure.” 3 April 2006.
Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall, 1988.
- - -. Paragraphs on Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1993.
Ocelka, Jaromír. “Cluster www-serverů MU.” Zpravodaj ÚVT MU. XIII.5 June 2003. 5 March 2006.
O’Hagan, Minako. “Training for Localization” Localization and Translator Training – an online conference 20–29 November 2003. Intercultural Studies Group, 2003.
Passolo. Vers. 5.0 Demo. 13 April 2006.
Perekrestenko, Alexander, Anthony Pym, and Bram Starink, eds. Translation Technology and its Teaching. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, 2006.
Procházka, Vít. “Computer Aided Translation: Translation Memory Systems.” Diss. Masaryk University, 2005.
Pym, Anthony. “Coming to Terms with and against Nationalist Cultural Specificity (Notes for Ethos of Translation Studies).” Translation Strategies and Effects in Cross-cultural Value Transfer and Shifts. The 8th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting held in Prague, 20–22 October 1992. Ed. Jana Králová and Zuzana Jettmarová. Praha [Prague]: Folia Translatologica, 1993.
49
Pym, Anthony. “Translation and Localization” 25 Feb. 2006.
- - -. Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992.
Račanský, Václav. “Výroční zpráva ÚVT MU za rok 2005.” 10 April 2006
SDL Trados Freelance. Vers. 2006 Trial Version. 15 April 2006.
Williams, Jenny, and Andrew Chesterman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2002.
50 9. List of Figures
Fig. 1. Interrelationship of translation, localization and globalization...... 8 Fig. 2. Top Ten Languages on the Internet...... 10 Fig. 3. Google occurrences of selected terms...... 15 Fig. 4. Inter-variety differences between British and American English ...... 17 Fig. 5. Example of Czenglish ...... 17 Fig. 6. Trends in translation technology...... 19 Fig. 7. Internal repetitions on selected websites...... 20 Fig. 8. Tool selection according to file format...... 22 Fig. 9. Aligning HTML files with Trados WinAlign ...... 25 Fig. 10. Extracting Terminology ...... 26 Fig. 11. Working with TagEditor: Features...... 27 Fig. 12. Fuzzy match in TagEditor...... 28 Fig. 13. Exact match in TagEditor...... 28 Fig. 14. Bilingual preview mode in TagEditor...... 29 Fig. 15a, b, c. Problematic English versions ...... 35 Fig. 16. Gathering Information about MU ...... 40 Fig. 17. MU websites: frequency of use...... 41 Fig. 18. MU websites: satisfaction with translation ...... 42 Fig. 19. Opinions about MU websites ...... 43 Fig. 20. IS MU: frequency of use ...... 44 Fig. 21. Opinions about IS MU ...... 45
51 10. Appendix: Survey Screenshots
The complete student version of the survey follows. The teacher version was based on the student version and only minor modifications were carried out; therefore it is not included here at all.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58