Accept a bilingual company profile in two stages: meaning first, then the designed and exported files. Correct translation in a text document is insufficient if a qualification disappears during layout, a code becomes ambiguous or a paragraph is clipped. Arabic and English readers should receive the same facts, service boundaries and next step in natural language.
Identify the Arabic reviewer, English reviewer and owners of commercial and operational facts. One qualified person may cover several roles, but language fluency does not automatically confer authority to approve company data. Establish which source resolves disagreements before review begins.
Compare facts rather than paragraph lengths
Create a reference list of official names, service names, coverage, figures, dates, limitations and contact details. Give each an approved form in both languages, an internal source and an accountable owner. Equal word counts are unnecessary; the two languages may need different constructions to communicate the same relationship.
When reviewing Arabic and English content, ask whether the level of commitment changed. “Support coordination” is not equivalent to “deliver the entire operation.” Look for conditional availability becoming an unconditional promise, planned services becoming current capability, or a team member's previous-employer experience becoming a company project.
Keep terminology decisions in a shared reference rather than resolving the same term differently on successive pages. Where a term is genuinely ambiguous, get the service owner to explain the intended meaning before the language reviewers choose wording.
Test difficult layout samples
A cover with one heading and a photograph is a weak acceptance sample. Select a representative page containing Arabic prose, a Latin-script name, a telephone number, a table and a link. Adobe documents World-Ready support for multilingual and bidirectional composition in InDesign. The presence of that capability does not replace checking the exported file. Adobe guidance.
Review paragraph and table direction separately. Do not mechanically mirror images, codes or diagrams because a page is Arabic. Copy the telephone number into another field, read the project code character by character and open the link from the actual PDF. Inspect punctuation where Arabic and Latin text meet, clipped words and headings separated from their content.
Worked hypothetical: a logistics profile
An imaginary logistics business prepares Arabic and English profiles. The approved description covers shipment coordination within an agreed scope. The English draft instead promises complete supply-chain management. The team classifies this as a scope error and holds the page until the operational owner approves corrected wording. Changing the typeface cannot solve it.
Elsewhere, a capacity table refers to a previous year while the English paragraph presents the figure as current. The data owner checks the source and aligns the period. A contact number also appears ambiguously within an Arabic line; the designer corrects its layout and retests the export.
| Location | Issue | Owner | Closure evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Services page | English wording broadens the service | Service owner and language reviewer | Approved equivalent wording |
| Capacity table | Measurement periods differ | Data owner | Matching source and date |
| Contact page | Number order is ambiguous | Designer | Exported file and copy test |
This example illustrates a review method, not a LAB project result. Each correction has a location, owner and verification step instead of an unbounded instruction to “check the English.”
Write acceptance criteria into the brief
For company profile design, identify the deliverables under review: editable source, sharing copy and any separate print output. State how the audience will read them and whether selectable text, text search or clickable links are required. Do not casually add accessibility certification or legal compliance to a proofreading scope.
Useful criteria include:
- Names, numbers, periods and service boundaries agree across languages.
- Product and service terminology is approved by its owner, not a general dictionary alone.
- No clipped text, hidden internal notes or unresolved comments appear externally.
- Tables and labels remain readable at the agreed viewing size.
- Links and contact details work in the exported output.
- A representative paragraph can be edited and exported again without damaging text or typography.
If readers download the profile from a website or portal, language selection, download behaviour and navigation require a separate journey test. Those checks can be scoped through software quality assurance. They do not replace editorial review of the document itself.
Control review rounds
Maintain one issue log and distinguish factual, meaning, layout and preference comments. Resolve facts and meaning before decorative preferences, then retest affected pages. Changing a font can solve a problem on one page while causing clipping on another.
Avoid approving the two languages weeks apart without reconciling later changes. If a service is added after one language is approved, reopen the corresponding section. Keep the actual approved release: a message saying “approved” does not establish which attachment it referred to.
Before release, ask reviewers to confirm the version and the scope of their approval. A product owner may approve service descriptions without approving typography; a designer may confirm layout without approving a capacity figure. Recording those boundaries avoids an apparently complete sign-off that leaves important questions unanswered.
Frequently asked questions
Must the two versions have identical pages?
Not necessarily. Facts, message and boundaries should agree, while spacing or placement may differ to support reading. Specify the required level of visual correspondence before design starts.
Is one language reviewer enough?
That depends on the reviewer's competence in both languages and the subject matter. Numerical and operational approval still belongs with the information owners.
What happens when the source versions conflict?
Do not choose the more persuasive sentence. Hold the claim, identify the decision owner and record the approved wording before applying it to both files.
What should we send LAB first?
Provide the existing language versions, editable source and terminology list if available. Clarify whether the task covers meaning, layout or both so that review scope can be tested rather than assumed.
Source
- Adobe InDesign: World-Ready composers for Arabic and Hebrew — supports the narrow software-capability statement above.