APPENDIX 9 - REPORT TO THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ON PILOT STUDY OF ONLINE BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETING SERVICE
Introduction:
Following a discussion with the Equalities Unit of the Scottish Government, approval was given for Deaf Connections to undertake a short pilot to see if an online interpreting service could be delivered successfully and to give feedback which could be used to help shape further long-term developments in this area.
Background:
Deaf Connections has been exploring for some time the potential to deliver an online sign language interpreting service using the Internet. Initially working in collaboration with Sign Now, a Deaf-led private company who has designed a platform to deliver such a service, Deaf Connections undertook some market research across a number of public bodies to gauge the level of interest in such a service.
It became clear that while the interest was strong, there was reluctance for organisations to buy into a service which was, as yet, unproven. What was required was a pilot to demonstrate to all relevant stakeholders how such technology could be used and to gain essential feedback for future developments.
After a period of testing and training, the pilot, which ran for a total of seven months, commenced in November 2007 and concluded at the end of May 2008.
Aims:
It was agreed that the pilot would concentrate on three specific areas.
They were:
1. To test the robustness of the technology
2. Get the interpreters' views on working in a new environment
3. Get Deaf people's views on using the online service.
This report looks at the each of these aims and highlights the various issues that arose.
Aim 1. Robustness of the Technology:
It was agreed from the outset that we wanted to provide a service that was easily accessible and user friendly while at the same time reassuring the users that it was reliable. To achieve this, Deaf Connections redesigned their website and created a large "button" which, when clicked, took the user directly to the Sign Now log in page. Each user was given a user name and password. When that was entered, it made the connection to the interpreter who was on standby in the online interpreting room in Deaf Connections.
The only equipment needed by the Deaf user was a computer with a broadband connection and a webcam.
The interpreter had access to a large, high quality monitor with a built in webcam and a telephone with external headset and microphone to facilitate making external calls to 3rd parties.
Once connected to the interpreter, the Deaf user would indicate the nature of the call s/he wanted the interpreter to make and give the telephone number of the 3rd party. The interpreter would check the number with the Deaf user then make the call, interpreting all the time, including the explanation of the service and how it will work to the 3rd party.
During the pilot, 306 calls were made. Only 18 calls (6%) were affected by technical difficulties. This usually involved the screen "freezing". The main causes of these problems were with the individual's computer equipment or their broadband connection. Where the issue was related to the broadband connection, it was often out of the hands of the individual as they were caused by problems at their local telephone exchange.
Occasionally, Deaf Connections also experienced a drop in connection speed. This led us to conclude that any service provider would require to use an SDSL connection to ensure greater bandwidth, higher operating speeds and reliability.
As indicated previously, the pilot was designed to use the Sign Now platform for the delivery of the service. Part way through the pilot, it became necessary to find an alternative platform. Working collaboratively with the charity Sign Health, we identified and tested a number of potential alternatives and finally opted to replace Sign Now with Epop videoconferencing software which is widely used in the USA within a number of government departments. Further information on the Epop platform can be downloaded at: http://www.wiredred.com/index_skip.html
The main change in the logging in process between the two platforms was that with Epop, there was no need for the Deaf user to enter a username or password. This simplified matters but did cause some concern amongst the interpreters at first as they did not know who was making the incoming call until they saw the person on the screen.
Changing the operating platforms turned out to be a useful exercise for the purpose of the pilot. Both platforms have their strengths and weaknesses but the key finding of the exercise was that we were able to switch from one platform to the other without any appreciable difference in the quality and performance of the communication between the interpreters and the Deaf clients. This led us to the conclusion that videoconferencing technology, utilising the Internet, has now developed to a stage where it can deliver a sign language interpreting service robustly and with sufficient picture clarity to allow BSL to be used.
Aim 2. Interpreter's Views:
Initially, concerns were expressed by our sign language interpreters about working in a remote environment. The concerns were in relation to the following areas:
- Familiarity with the technology
- Reliability of the technology
- Ability to understand BSL in a 2-dimension format
- Being used as a relay interpreter to make telephone calls
- Dealing with Deaf clients remotely
Feedback was gathered by the interpreters logging all calls made and having regular discussions with the team. The following is the conclusions to the above areas of concern:
- Familiarity with the technology: All the interpreters were nervous about using the new technology. Training in the use of the technology was given and procedures were devised to help the interpreters deal with various potential problem scenarios. Scripts were also prepared to establish a standardised format for dealing with callers and 3rd parties. This collaborative approach in preparing to deal with the calls, along with the technical training, helped overcome the initial fear of the technology. Later, when we had to switch our operating platform, this confidence allowed the interpreters to adapt well to the new operating environment.
- Reliability of the technology: Concerns were expressed by the interpreters about the reliability of the technology and their ability to cope with technical problems if they arose. Along with the training provided and the preparation of various scenarios, assurances were given that technical support from our in-house IT department would be available if problems arose. This gave the interpreters the necessary confidence and in the end, the very low level of technical problems that actually occurred reassured them and allayed their fears.
- Ability to understand BSL in a 2 dimension format: Initial concerns about not being able to understand BSL and, in particular fingerspelling, in a 2-dimension format, have been overcome by familiarity. There was an initial spell where both the interpreters and the Deaf clients had to learn to adjust their position to ensure that their cameras were positioned correctly in order to see clearly but throughout the pilot, there has not been any record of either party not being able to follow each other, apart from the occasions where technical problems occurred.
- Being used as a relay interpreter to make telephone calls: The interpreters felt that the likelihood of being used by Deaf people to make phone calls for them was a change in their role and somewhat demeaning to their status. However, with the demand for the video relay service making up 83% of the calls, the interpreters were forced to reassess their role in enabling Deaf people to make calls to 3rd parties in their own language and they now acknowledge that this is an legitimate interpreting function and have got used to such a role.
- Dealing with Deaf clients remotely: There was initial concern that the interpreters would not be able to have the same level of rapport with the Deaf client if they were working in a remote environment. They were concerned that an online service would be regarded by Deaf people as being cold and impersonal. This has not proven to be the case. In most calls, there was always a degree of personal interaction and in the latter stage of the pilot, when all parties were familiar with the system, there were examples of "normal" interpreter/client relationships beginning to develop. It is probable that this would have become widespread amongst all Deaf users given time.
Aim 3. Deaf people's views on using the online service:
The pilot's biggest problem was that it underestimated the length of time it would take to identify members of the Deaf community who were willing and able to participate. The target number of clients for the pilot was 75 but we were only able to recruit 37.
Demonstrations of the online service were held in various parts of Scotland, including Glasgow, Dumfries, Ayr, Paisley, Motherwell, Airdrie, Dundee and Fife. At each event, there was considerable interest in the service and expressions of enthusiasm were made but we found that converting that enthusiasm into actual commitment very problematical for a number of reasons.
For some Deaf people, it was clear that they did not have the level of understanding required to use the equipment. Many did not have the necessary additional equipment, i.e. webcams while others were still using dial up connections to access the Internet which would not work and it would be costly. Discussions with the British Deaf Association indicated that they had a similar experience when they were operating their Video Relay Service.
However, amongst younger members of the Deaf community, many of whom were IT literate, no such problems existed and they proved to be the main users of the service, many of them using it on a regular basis.
A small number of Deaf people raised the issue of confidentiality and they were given assurances that the interpreters would observe the same SASLI codes of conduct as with face to face work.
Another issue raised concerned the potential familiarity with the interpreter. The argument was made that Deaf people might be more relaxed about using a Typetalk operator to discuss everyday personal and private matters, confident in the knowledge that they would never meet that operator. However, there may be a reluctance to use an interpreter for such a purpose when there was a high risk of meeting that interpreter face to face.
This led to a number of discussions within the Deaf staff at Deaf Connections and some of the participants of the pilot and the general consensus was that if they wanted to see a comprehensive interpreting service developed, then Deaf people would have to get used to using interpreters in a wider setting and come to terms with their issues regarding confidentiality and trust. It needs to be stated however that during the pilot, there was no evidence of Deaf people being reluctant to use the service, despite being familiar with the interpreters.
In our attempt to make contact with the Deaf community across Scotland, we approached the three main Deaf Centres in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. We did not receive any favourable response from two of them to the idea of the pilot service or to our request to demonstrate the service to Deaf people living in their areas. In fact, we received an unfavourable response from one organisation who believed that the development of an online interpreting service would be a threat to their existing service.
Of those Deaf people who participated in the pilot, the vast majority were happy with the service and expressed disappointment when it came to a close.
Additional Information:
1. Facts & Figures:
During the pilot, a total of 306 calls were made, of which 254 (83%) were for a video relay service. The top 4 groups of calls were:
- "Other" (78)
- Work Colleagues (67)
- Local Council Business (64)
- Other Utilities (42)
N.B. "Other" calls included: lawyers, query re job interviews, Tesco Clubcard, delivery company, airport, bus company, 10-pin bowling and paintballing.
- 18 calls failed due to technical interruptions
- 3 calls were refused by 3rd parties
N.B. In each case, the 3rd parties indicated that they were authorised to take the call through Typetalk only.
- In 2 cases, 3rd parties sought verification about the service before proceeding to handle the call
- 292 calls (95%) were registered as successful by the Deaf client
2. Feedback from Deaf Users:
The responses we have received from users have been positive. The following are some examples:
"It's like Typetalk but better because I use my language, BSL."
"It's quicker and I can see the interpreter. This gives me a feeling of control because I can see what is going on."
"It's easier not having to think what to type in English, I know how to sign it quicker and more like my real words."
"I love if interpreter is ALWAYS there I can phone time suit to me not wait until open again in morning."
"I organise a special uplift of rubbish from my house and never, never did this before as worry what have to do. It was so quickly and easily on-line."
"I had been trying to get an issue with DVLA sort for about one year through Typetalk and so frustrated and got no information and no driving licence all that time as pass from dept to next and cost me fortune. Then I use on line and got it sorted in 10 minute and have driving licence safe back at last, thank God!"
"We love it webcam interpreter and we are very sad it's stop. I'm sad! I hope in the future it keeps on."
"I prefer to type talk as fantastic, easy to use no stress for me worry I'm explain in my English right."
"Communication is so smooth, when I move house recently I had call to my lawyer and by having her information signed to me straight away I could complete understand it. I even went on line to ask my lawyer to explain a difficult letter I receive from her that morning. I didn't understand what she want me to do and it turn out important and had to reply immediately. If never got interpreter for this I would have ignore the letter as too hard for me."
"I had contact my lawyer a couple of time before use type talk, I always assume she nice friendly, happy get my call from words on my minicom screen she seem nice! Then I contact her again through the on line interpreter and the interpreter explain to me that she grumpy and impatient with me! I never realised this from just the words!"
"Normally I get my mum to phone up my insurance company etc. I always wonder why she then start to press phone buttons AFTER she finish dial the number. It was only when I use on line service the interpreter then told me there is 'options' to choose from which dept to go through to. My Mum had decide the choice before!!"
"I definitely prefer the on line service to type talk, it is so much easier. Even sometime you think it will be straightforward conversation on type talk then big words difficult language come on the screen and you start to get lost what happening."
"On line is my language. It took me time to get used to the new way but now I love it."
"Lots of Deaf people are ask me where the service is now as they want to use it, I think it should be back again as Deaf need time to get used to it and this wasn't long enough."
3. Consultation with Public Bodies:
During the pilot, Deaf Connections met with a number of Local Authorities and Health Boards to discuss the potential for the long-term development of an online interpreting service. There was a wide range of responses and it is clear that there is a wide variety of opinions and stages of readiness relating to such a service.
Overall, there was a keenness to see such a service developed but many of the public bodies did not feel they had the I.T. infrastructure in place to enable them to allow public access from their offices. Concern was also expressed about Deaf people being prepared to use an online interpreter in place of a face to face interpreter.
Another significant factor was pricing structure. There appeared to be a reluctance to buy a service on a block booking basis as these public bodies could not estimate at this point exactly the level of usage would be. There was a preference for a spot purchase model.
Most public bodies liked the idea of an extended pilot in order to give more time for both themselves to use the service more extensively and develop their I.T. infrastructure and for Deaf people to become more familiar with such a service.
4. Other Models of Online Interpreting Services:
During the period of the pilot, we looked at similar developments elsewhere. The pre-eminent service in Europe is the MMX system designed by Sony Erickson in Sweden. This is a very flexible service, allowing calls to be made from videophones, the Internet and 3G mobile phones. In addition, there is a visual queuing system which allows callers to see where they are in the queue. This system has now been established across all the Scandinavian countries and has recently been established in Germany and is currently being established in Australia.
Online interpreting services have become well established in the Scandinavian countries with one agency delivering 1 million calls per year from a team of 6 interpreters working between 0800-2000 hrs.
Information from this agency replicates the evidence of the pilot in that the vast bulk of demand is for a video relay service. Such demand is enhanced by the high volume of calls from 3G mobile phones, which allow Deaf people to access an interpreter from anywhere. This service has been named "The Pocket Interpreter".
There are 3 key points to bear in mind when considering the possibility of establishing a similar service in Scotland.
Firstly, to provide a comprehensive system, the service provider would have to invest in a system similar to the MMX. This would allow the maximum flexibility for all users wishing to access the service.
Secondly, the 3G mobile networks need to be more established with greater cover than at present.
Thirdly, the cost of the video relay service in the Scandinavian countries is met by the Government. (in the USA, the Federal Government also meets the cost of their VRS).
Conclusions:
1. The feedback tells us that it was a very successful pilot for those Deaf people who participated. The strongest message was that given a choice, Deaf people preferred to use a BSL video relay service rather than an English based service such as Typetalk.
2. It is clear that the technology is now robust enough to deal with fast moving images and that such technology is now widely commercially available.
3. The interpreters' professional concerns were overcome quite easily. A Video Relay Service was accepted as a legitimate and valid use of an interpreter's role and that it would form part of their portfolio of work.
4. An online interpreting service should not be seen as an alternative to the existing traditional service. However, it can be useful in a number of situations, particularly in rural areas and/or when the interpreting assignment is of a short duration. This would go some way to address the problem of the chronic shortage of interpreters and it would also address the Government's aim to reduce carbon emissions as it would reduce the need to travel.
5. Evidence from Scandinavia and other countries has clearly shown that with the correct operating platform and Government funding, an online service can work very well and forms part of a national service.
6. As an agency that has been heavily involved in the development of the Sign Language Interpreting profession, Deaf Connections regards online interpreting as a natural progression and would be prepared to invest human and financial resources to make such a service a reality.
7. Deaf Connections believes that it would be feasible to offer a national online interpreting service for approximately £150,000. This would be a 7 day service between 0800-2000 hrs, employing the equivalent of 3 full-time interpreters. We believe that this would make a significant impact on the lives of Deaf people for a minimum cost.
G. M. Chapman
Chief Executive
Deaf Connections
1st August 2008