Hierarchy of QTLaunchPad Quality Issue Types

version 2.2 (2013 May 24)

Previous versions:
2.1 (2013 May 21) • Link
2.0 (2013 January 18) • Link

Note: This version is preliminary and the content, name, and value of nodes within the hierarchy may move. Citations to this hierarchy must reference the version number and URL to ensure accuracy.

This document describes the issues only. Information on dimensions and scoring methods is maintained separately.

High-level structure

Hierarchical listing

Fluency

Content: Issues related to content, excluding presentational and/or mechanical issues

Mechanical: Issues related to the presentation and/or mechanics of the text

Accuracy

Verity

Legacy Compatibility

Full Graphical View

High-level structure

The following shows the high-level structure of the MQM issue types, but does not expand to the full set of issues. Rather it addresses a more typically require level of granularity. A full graphical representation appears at the end of this document. Highlighted categories represent the recommended “default” set of common issues that may be used when reviewers do not have more precise guidelines.

Hierarchical listing

Note that the following listing includes categories that address many situations. It is not anticipated that users will typically use all of these categories or the full granularity present in this hierarchy. Users are encouraged to select issues at the highest level of granularity sufficient to meet their requirements and to create metrics using a small number of issue types.

Other. This is used as a catch-all for any issues not adequately covered by this hierarchy. If such issues are systematically encountered, please inform info@qt21.eu for consideration for a future update of this hierarchy.

1. Fluency

Note: Fluency relates to monolingual assessment of source or target text, independent of relationship between the two, and relative to agreed-upon specifications.

1. Unintelligible
   The exact nature of the error cannot be determined. Indicates a major break down in fluency.

Content: Issues related to content, excluding presentational and/or mechanical issues

2. Monolingual terminology
   Terms (as opposed to general-language words) are used incorrectly.

1. Monolingual terminology, normative
   Terms are used in violation of formal guidelines in a terminology database or other terminology resource
2. Monolingual terminology, domain-specific
   Terms are used in ways inconsistent with widely accepted usage in the domain of the text and not otherwise addressed in normative terminology.
3. Monolingual terminology, inconsistent
   Terms are used inconsistently within a document or project (e.g., running text refers to the “Start button” but graphics refer to the “Ignition button”)

3. Inconsistency (Other than terminological inconsistency)
   The text shows internal inconsistency. E.g., it states that bug reports should be submitted to a mailing list in one place and via an online bug tracker tool in another.

1. Inconsistency between abbreviations
   The form of abbreviations is inconsistent in the text. E.g., both “app.” and “approx.” are used for approximately.
2. Inconsistency between images and text
   E.g., the text describes a red wire but the accompanying photo shows a green wire; A screen shot shows text that differs from the equivalent text in documentation.
3. Discourse
   The discourse structure of the text is inconsistent in a confusing or unclear manner.

4. Style

1. Style, normative
   The text violates style defined in a normative specification, e.g., Chicago Manual of Style
2. Style, company
   The text violates a company-specific style guideline.
3. Variants and/or slang
   The text uses words, including slang, inappropriate to the desired register.

5. Register
   The text uses an register inconsistent with the specifications or general language conventions. E.g., a legal notice in German uses the informal du form instead of the expected Sie form.
6. Duplication
   Content has been duplicated (e.g., a word or longer portion of text is repeated unintentionally).
7. Ambiguity
   The text is ambiguous in its meaning.

1. Unclear reference
   The text uses relative pronouns or other referential mechanisms that are unclear as to their reference. E.g., A text reads “After completing this, move to the next step,” but there are a number of possible references for this in the text.

Mechanical: Issues related to the presentation and/or mechanics of the text

8. Spelling
   Issues related to spelling of words

1. Capitalization
   Issues related to capitalization, e.g., the German word Liebe (‘love, n.’) is written as liebe (‘I love’).
2. Diacritics
   Issues related to the use of diacritics, e.g., the Hungarian word bőven is spelled bõven, using the wrong diacritic.

9. Orthography
   Issues related to the mechanical presentation of text. This category should be used for any typographical errors other than spelling that cannot be addressed by daughter categories (if daughters are used in the metric).

1. Punctuation
   Punctuation is used incorrectly for the locale or style (e.g., an English text uses a semicolon is used where a comma should be used.)
   NB: For cases of systematic uses of punctuation from the wrong locale, use Quote marks format under Locale convention instead.
2. Unpaired quote marks or brackets
   One of a pair of quotes or brackets (e.g., a (, [, or { character ) is missing from text.
3. Character encoding/interpretation error
   Characters are garbled due to incorrect application of an encoding, e.g., a text document in ISO Latin-1 encoding is opened in Mac Roman encoding and all bullet (•) characters are rendered as yen (¥) characters, or UTF-8 is interpreted as ISO-Latin 1, resulting in unreadable text.

10. Grammar
    Issues related to the grammar or syntax of the text.

1. Morphology (word form)
   There is a problem in the internal construction of a word, e.g, “ilreligious” instead of “irreligious”
2. Part of speech
   The word is the wrong part of speech (e.g., a noun form was used when a verb should appear)
3. Agreement
   E.g., “they was expecting a report”
4. Word order
   The word order is incorrect, e.g., a German text reads “Er hat gesehen einen Mann” instead of “Er hat einen Mann gesehen.”

11. Locale convention
    The text does not adhere to locale-specific conventions.

1. Date format
2. Time format
3. Measurement format
4. Number format
5. Quote marks format
   E.g., A French text should use guillemots («») but instead uses German-style quotes („”)
6. National language standard
   Text does not conform to legally mandated language standards (e.g., Académie française specifications)

12. Nonallowed characters
    The text includes characters that are not allowed (e.g., the text must be displayed on a legacy system using Shift-JIS encoding but has characters that cannot be represented in Shift-JIS, or a Japanese text for a mobile device is to use only “half-width” kana but instead uses full-width kana).
13. Nonallowed pattern
    The text contains a pattern (e.g., text that matches a regular expression) that is not allowed, such as a colon in a Macintosh file name or a back-slash in a Windows file name.
14. Sorting
    A list is not in the appropriate collated sequence. (NB: For index/TOC collation errors, use Index/TOC collation.) E.g., a list should be in alphabetical order, but instead appears in a random order.
15. Broken link/cross-reference
    A link or cross reference points to an incorrect or nonexistent location

1. document-internal broken link/cross-reference
   A link or cross reference points to an incorrect or nonexistent location within the same document within which it occurs.
2. document-external broken link/cross-reference
   A link or cross reference points to an incorrect or nonexistent location outside of the same document within which it occurs

16. Index/TOC
    Issues related to an index or Table of Contents (TOC).

1. Collation
   An index/TOC is sorted incorrectly
2. Page references
   An index/TOC refers to incorrect page numbers
3. Index/TOC format
   An index/TOC is formatted incorrectly
4. Index/TOC tags
   Issues related to tags used for an index/TOC

1. Missing
   An index/TOC tag is missing, resulting in an item being excluded from the index/TOC
2. Incorrect
   An index/TOC tag refers to an incorrect item. E.g., an index tag for a term is applied to the wrong location in a sentence resulting in the page reference being off; An index tag refers to an incorrect term.

2. Accuracy

Note: Accuracy addresses the correspondence between source and target texts, relative to agreed-upon specifications.

17. Bilingual terminology
    A term is translated with a term other than the one expected for the domain or otherwise specified. E.g., the English musicological term dog is translated into German as Hund instead of as Schnarre.

1. Bilingual terminology, normative
   A term is translated in a way that does not accord with its normative translation (i.e., a translation mandated in a termbase or other authoritative listing of terms and their translations that was specified for use in the translation.)

18. Mistranslation
    The target content does not accurately represent the source content

1. Overly literal
   The translation is overly literal; e.g., the translation interprets an idiom literally, resulting in a translation that means something other than the source.
2. False friend
   The translation has incorrectly used a word that is superficially similar to the source word, e.g., translating Italian simpatico as English sympathetic.
3. Inconsistent number
   Numbers are inconsistent between source and target.
4. Inconsistent entities
   Names, places, or other “named entities” do not match (e.g., the source text refers to “Dublin” (Ireland) but the translation refers to “Dublin, Ohio”).
5. Non-matching dates/times
   Dates or times do not match between source and target.

1. Non-matching date
   A date does not match between source and target. This problem frequently occurs when a translator misinterprets a date because formats differ between locales.
2. Non-matching time
   A time does not match between source and target. [NB: Before assigning this issue type, verify that no time-zone conversions or adjustments are specified that may impact how times should be displayed.]

6. Unconverted value
   The target text has not converted numeric values as needed. E.g., the source text specifies that an item is 25 centimeters long, but the source target states it is 25 inches long. [NB: If only the measurement system, rather than the actual value, is wrong, an issue should be treated under locale convention.]

19. Omission
    Content is missing from the translation that is present in the source.
20. Untranslated
    Content that should have been translated has been left untranslated.

1. Untranslated graphic
   Text in a graphic was left untranslated.

21. Addition
    The target text includes text not present in the source.

3. Verity

Note: Verity issues address the relationship between the text and the world and are used for cases where the text is not accurate or sufficient in its representation of the world or suffers from other problems with regard to usability. (I.e., a translated text can be fully fluent and accurate to its source yet still have problems in the “real world.”)

22. Fidelity
    The text makes statements that contradict the world of the text (e.g., the text states that a feature is present in a particular automotive model, when in fact the model does not include that feature).
23. Completeness
    The text is incomplete. For example, a process description omits key steps or a description of a device leaves out important details (NB: For cases where material from the source language is not present in a translation, Omission should be used instead.)
24. Legal requirements
    The target text does not meet legal requirements as set forth in the specifications; e.g., specifications stated that FCC notices be replaced by CE notices rather than translated, but they were translated instead.
25. Locale suitability
    The text is unsuitable for the intended locale. E.g., an advertising text translated for Sweden refers to special offers available only in Germany.

4. Design (mono- and/or bi-lingual)

1. Overall design (layout)

1. Color
   Colors are used incorrectly (e.g., headings should be red but are instead blue)
2. Global font choice
   The overall font chosen is incorrect or inappropriate, e.g., an English source text was set in a standard-weight serif font but the Japanese translation uses a heavy-weight “gothic” (sans-serif) font.
3. Footnote/endnote format
   Footnotes or endnotes are placed inappropriately or use incorrect in-text symbols
4. Headers and footers
   Headers or footers are formatted incorrectly [NB: Cases where the text itself is wrong should be treated in Accuracy or Fluency, as appropriate.]
5. Margins
   Text margins are incorrect.
6. Widows/orphans
   The text has widows or orphans (single or short lines of text that appear on a separate page from the rest of a paragraph).
7. Page breaks, inappropriate
   Page breaks appear in inappropriate locations, e.g., a page break appears between a figure and its caption.

2. Local formatting

1. Text alignment
   The text is aligned inappropriately, e.g., headings should be centered but were instead left-aligned.
2. Paragraph indentation
   Paragraphs are indented improperly, e.g., paragraphs should be indented 4 mm, but additional tab characters were inserted, resulting in an indent of 25 mm.
3. Font (local)
   Issues related to local font usage (i.e., font choices that impact a span of content rather than the global choice of the document).

1. Font, incorrect
   The font is incorrect, e.g., italics should have been used but roman face was used; Obliqued Japanese fonts were used (corresponding to italics in a German source) whereas dot accents should have been used.
2. Font, wrong size
   The font size is incorrect, e.g., a short portion of text was improperly reduced from 12 pt to 10 pt.
3. Font, single/double-width (CJK only)
   Single-width characters are used when double-width are intended, or vice versa.
4. Font, kerning
   Kerning (inter-character spacing) is off, e.g., two adjacent characters overlap each other and need to have additional space added between them.
5. Font, leading
   Leading (spacing between lines of text) is off, e.g., leading was not increased as needed for Chinese text and the resulting text looks too “dense” and is difficult to read.

3. Markup
   Issues related to “markup” (codes used to represent structure or formatting of text, also known as “tags”). [NB: Given the complexity of the topic, many markup issues will need to be verified manually; for items i–iii below, the issues presented examples may be entirely appropriate in some cases or could represent errors.]

1. Markup, added
   The target text has markup added with no corresponding markup in the source (e.g., a target text has formatting markup where none is present in the source).
2. Markup, missing
   Markup in the source is missing in the target (e.g., a source document has numerous markup elements that have no equivalent in the target).
3. Markup, inconsistent
   Markup elements are inconsistent between the source and target (e.g., a source HTML file has an <em> tag but the translation has a <strong> tag in the same place).
4. Tag, questionable
   Markup is present that appears malformed or inappropriate for its context (e.g., in an XML document a tag appears in an area not allowed by the DTD)

4. Whitespace
   Refers to issues with regard to whitespace

1. Whitespace, double
   The text uses strings of whitespace characters inappropriately, e.g., the publication style specifies that single spaces should be used after full stop (.) characters, but the text uses double-spaces.
2. Whitespace, incorrect number of tabs
   The text uses an incorrect number of tabs, e.g., single tabs should appear between items of tabular data but instead strings of tabs were inserted to “pad” the appearance.
3. Missing whitespace
   Whitespace present in the source is missing in the target.
4. Extra whitespace
   The target has whitespace not present in the source.
5. Inconsistent whitespace
   Whitespace in the target is inconsistent with the source. E.g, the source has a string of two tab characters but the target has eight space characters.

5. Graphics and tables
   Issues related to the formatting of graphics and tables. [NB: Issues related to fonts or other local aspects within graphics or tables should be handled in other appropriate categories.]

1. Position of graphic/table in text
   The graphic or table is positioned incorrectly, e.g., the graphic appears on a different page than where it is referred to.
2. Linking tag
   The tag used to link to a graphic is corrupted or missing, e.g., a tag refers to an incorrect location and the graphic does not appear.
3. Call-outs and caption
   There are issues with call-outs (text within a graphic that identifies parts) or captions.

6. Truncation/text expansion
   The target text has insufficient room to display the translated text according to specifications.
7. Length
   There is a significant discrepancy between the source and the target text lengths (e.g., an English sentence is 253 characters long but its German translation is 51 characters long)
   NB: Significance in this context depends on the languages involved and many other factors and no general guideline as to what constitutes significance is possible.
8. Internationalization
   There are problems related to the internationalization of content or layout, e.g., an online form assumes that all postal codes conform to the U.S. zip+four format.

5. Legacy Compatibility

The following list contains items which may be used for compatibility with legacy metrics even though they would generally be out of scope for MQM due to focus or vagueness. For example, Deadline represents an aspect of project quality and so cannot be assessed in terms of the product (i.e., the translated text/document) itself. Others (e.g., Functional) relate to engineering or software testing aspects out of scope for MQM.

1. Bill of materials/Runlist
2. Application compatibility
3. Book-building sequence
4. Deadline
5. Delivery
6. File format
7. Embedded text
8. Output device
9. Printing
10. Release guide
11. Does not adhere to specifications
12. Functional
13. Terminology, contextually inappropriate
    Terms are used in a contextually inappropriate fashion (e.g., the term is valid for the domain but context dictates that a different term be used).
14. Style, publishing standards
    The required publishing standards of logos, paper stock, paper size, bleeds, etc., should be met according to agreed publishing conventions. E.g., Each part opening art should have been bled but this was not communicated to the print vendor, so the pages were cropped to include a white spaced border.
15. Spines
16. Covers

These categories should be used for compatibility with legacy metrics (particularly the LISA QA Model) only and their general use is discouraged and these categories are not shown in the graphical overviews in this document.

Full Graphical View

The following image shows MQM expanded to its full granularity. For most purposes the categories shown in the high-level structural overview at the start of this document would be sufficient for assessment purposes, but in some cases greater granularity is desired.