Our unique Quality Triangle approach was designed to address the shortfalls of the language industry’s existing methodology. Developing this methodology was not a purely scientific endeavor, but an attempt to create a foundation for building robust, sound, universal quality metrics and reliable business processes. Our aim is to provide a universal and practical approach to measuring quality:
All quality metrics developed at Logrus IT are based on the Quality Triangle Methodology.
The following section describes the foundation, that is the Quality Triangle methodology, its cornerstones, extensions, and overall place in the picture. The subsequent Metrics section covers the extent of quality metrics built on this foundation and their recommended areas of applicability.
The Quality Triangle Methodology hinges on the fact that the holistic perception of any text, software, game or website is the primary driver of human sentiment. At the same time, it is crucial not to overlook factual, technical, grammatical, and other content issues, especially when they become overabundant.
The hybrid approach to quality measurement accounts for all of the above and relies on three foci: holistic adequacy, holistic readability, and atomistic quality.
Holistic quality and readability were emphasized as crucial criteria for translation quality assessment as early as the 1960s (ALPAC).
Atomistic quality reflects the number and severity of local issues discovered at set content unit (sentence, string) levels. It has become an integral part of a whole spectrum of issue catalogues and quality metrics, from the trailblazing LISA quality model to the modern DFKI Multidimensional Quality Metrics.
Building Language Quality Assurance Models – Part I, the first article of the series:
The era of Machine Translation (MT) and agile localization has led the demand for fast and inexpensive overall quality assessments to grow dramatically. Unfortunately, no scientifically sound, reliable approach to making such assessments existed. The Quality Triangle model accounts for this crucial area; in this case, the holistic factors at the core of our methodology would be brought to the forefront. A Simplified LQA Model for Crowdsourcing Environment, the second article in the series:
Some atomistic quality frameworks, such as the MQM framework, are quite extensive; they often cover a huge number of potential quality issues. Before creating metrics, we need to answer several important questions:ality issues. Before creating metrics, we need to answer several important questions:
What Should(n’t) Be Included in LQAs, the third article in the series:
The Quality Triangle approach is completely flexible: It can be combined with any low-level, atomistic quality issue catalogue, including popular and publicly available frameworks, like the MQM framework that we wholeheartedly recommend, as well as proprietary issue catalogues developed and/or utilized by clients.
At the same time, each quality issue catalogue brings onboard its own definitions, which are not always perfectly aligned with the concepts and definitions in the Quality Triangle model. High-level, holistic factors like adequacy and readability in the Quality Triangle model often seem to have “relatives” in various existing atomistic quality frameworks. For instance, the MQM framework uses concepts like “fluency” and “accuracy”, which sound more alike than they really are.
The fourth article in the series: Relationship between Holistic and Atomistic Quality Issues
The Quality Triangle model was originally developed with technical content in mind, but it can organically accommodate factors for artistic and special content. The primary task in this case is finding the right place and approach to add factors like tone and voice to the Quality Triangle model without creating controversy or inconsistency.
Applying the Quality Triangle Model to Artistic and Special Content, the fifth article in the series:
