For all contemporary typologies of translation, the classification proposed more than 60 years ago by Roman Jakobson in his work 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation' is the basic point of reference. The division into intralinguistic, interlinguistic and intersemiotic translation, with or without reservations, is still adopted by semiotic scholars today. A list of the most important reservations was formulated by Umberto Eco in his essay 'Translation and Interpretation', in which, based on a critique and supplementation of Jakobson's concept, he proposed an alternative triad: interpretation by transcription, intrasystemic and intersystemic interpretation. However, both Jakobson's approach and Eco's critique show weaknesses. These include, firstly, the subordination of classification to typical situations in which the initial message is transferred to another semiotic environment. Secondly, both the concepts of 'intersemioticity' and 'intersystemicity' exhibit inconsistencies. The paper will briefly outline the fundamental weaknesses and inconsistencies of both classical typologies. A proposal for a simplified, two-class typology will also be presented, abstracting from the terminological confusion surrounding the terms 'translation' and 'interpretation' with their overlapping semantic scopes. A detailed alternative to the concepts of intersemiotic translation and intersystemic interpretation will be presented, based on the criterion of typological similarity between the initial and target semiotic environments of the message.