  Recent studies emphasize the need of document context in human evaluation of
machine translations, but little research has been done on the impact of user
interfaces on annotator productivity and the reliability of assessments. In
this work, we compare human assessment data from the last two WMT evaluation
campaigns collected via two different methods for document-level evaluation.
Our analysis shows that a document-centric approach to evaluation where the
annotator is presented with the entire document context on a screen leads to
higher quality segment and document level assessments. It improves the
correlation between segment and document scores and increases inter-annotator
agreement for document scores but is considerably more time consuming for
annotators.
