Video-Interpreting White Paper
Introduction
No one would argue that modern technology has completely changed the way that business and government manage and deliver services. E-mail and fax messages provide instant, permanent records of transactions and decisions; tools such as PowerPoint and Adobe Reader allow for creative presentations and documents; and videoconferencing is providing effective, real-time communication among employees, consumers, and clients. For Deaf consumers, it is video-based interpreting technology that has suddenly provided an alternative system for communication with their vocational rehabilitation counselors and others.
Videoconferencing technology is designed to provide real-time communication between two or more users when distances separate them. Large corporations and universities regularly use the technology now for purposes such as meetings that would have previously required long travel periods for their employees. For the Deaf consumer, video interpreting provides even more, i.e., access to real-time communication in their native signed language, thereby removing linguistic and cultural barriers and providing equitable access to the hearing world.
Thus, it would seem that video interpreting could be a ‘magic pill’ capable of not only solving the costly issues of time and travel for vocational rehabilitation staff, but also allowing for more deaf-friendly communication. However, before any agency chooses to pursue this technology as a means of providing services for Deaf consumers, a thorough review of the possible technology and services, as well as the obvious and hidden advantages and disadvantages, is necessary.
Terms and Definitions
As with any new technology system, an understanding of its common terms, definitions, and phrases is needed. The most common terms and concepts related to Video Interpreting-based services are:
Video Relay Service (VRS): A telecommunications relay service that allows people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone users through video equipment. The video link allows the Interpreter (also known as a Communication Assistant (CA) or Video Interpreter (VI) to view and interpret the party’s signed conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice caller. (RID Video Interpreting Ad hoc Committee, July 05) The VRS is an Internet-based service that connects the Deaf consumer to an interpreter via a web cam or videophone. However, the hearing person does not see either the Deaf consumer or the interpreter and needs no special equipment other than a regular telephone.
Currently, under FCC regulations, VRS is free to the consumer for telephone communication. The FCC also mandates that interpreters must to be qualified.
Video Remote Interpreting (VRI): Is provided between two parties who may or may not be located in the same room or location. VRI is another delivery model for traditional interpreting services covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). With VRI, three possible interpreter locations exist: 1) the interpreter can be at a location remote to both the Deaf and hearing individuals (but the individuals are at the same site); 2) the interpreter is physically located with the Deaf consumer and the hearing person is remote; or 3) the interpreter is physically located with the hearing person and the Deaf consumer is remote. VRI services are arranged by an individual contacting a VRI provider and requesting an interpreter. The same type of equipment and connectivity requirements are used for VRI as for VRS. The advantage of most VRI providers is that they have interpreters working 24 hours a day, so there is no wait for services. Other VRI providers require that the interpreter request be made in advance in order to ensure availability of the interpreter. Most VRI providers charge a per-minute or per-hour user fee to the person or business arranging the session.
Video Interpreting: This is the term used for any form of remote interpreting involving the use of video technology. This can include VRS or VRI.
Technology Basics
Although the computer and a webcam can be used to deliver video interpreting, there is a growing trend to use both videophones and televisions for the same purpose. Currently the most popular videophone is the D-link, which retails at about $200 (Oct 2005). In those cases, the TV and the videophone replace the computer and its peripherals but require the same broadband (high speed) cable or DSL line. Many of the VRS service providers give videophones to deaf consumers at no charge.
There is also a new “stand-alone” videophone on the market called the Motorola”OJO.” No TV monitor is required for this product, as the screen is built into the unit. It is portable and requires less bandwidth than the videophone and the webcam computer setup. The OJO videophone currently sells for about $700 (Oct 2005).
Equipment Comparison
D-Link Video Phone
|
PROS |
CONS |
|
Utilizes 13-21” Television - $150 or less Utilizes stand alone DSL line Plug & Play installation Not connected to Network D-Link can be purchased for under $200 No ISS staff time required No software installation required No security risks to PCs if stand alone D-Link picture is larger – clearer for signing Range of camera can include 2-3 persons Lens can be removed for wide angle lens Less freezing of picture than web camera Can be moved with cart to another location Free technical support from D-Link or VRS Television offers better picture than PC Can use DSL number or IP address to call Television can be used for other purposes DSL line can be installed on TTY line D-Link connects via video/audio jacks Has built in Microphone for audio Operates like a telephone/dial/rings Can add a flashing signaling device |
Clarity of picture will depend on size of Television screen No onsite technical support Requires space for Television in office |
Web Camera
|
PROS |
CONS |
|
Utilizes stand-alone PC – Dual Use Can utilize stand-alone DSL line Software is free – downloadable DSL is not connected to Network Allows Internet access/research Saves office space due to use on PC ISS can provide support Can be used with laptop or PC Camera connects via USB port |
Requires ISS installation Cannot be used with Virtual Desktop Software requires ISS installation Security issue for stand alone PC Security issue/Multi-tasking is difficult If on a Network there are firewall issues. Ports must be open. Picture is smaller than D-Link Quality of picture depends on monitor/memory/video card Many report inability to connect with D-Link devices Many report picture will freeze frequently If on a Network, ISS reports concerns re: load issues. If on a Network, ISS reports concerns re: security issues. Picture quality for signing is less than optimal due to pixilation. Range of camera is limited – single person use PC and camera are more difficult to move Requires appropriate video card installed on PC Users report web camera is more time-consuming Calls are limited to internet IP address/must be online Needs sound card/speakers on PC to operate audio Small in size/easy to be moved/stolen |
OJO
|
PROS |
CONS |
|
Clear video picture using advanced H.264 video compression** Built-in microphone Built-in video display Built-in speakerphone Built-in video and audio mail Does not require a separate television Independent, does not require a computer Able to make and receive both traditional wireline telephone calls and internet audio/video calls. Hearing aid compatible handset Portable, weighing 2.5lbs. Uses traditional telephone number dialing schema Picture-based caller ID Free technical support from Motorola
|
Cannot dial an IP address at this time Requires the purchase of a monthly service of $14.95 unless included by VRI/VRS provider |
**H.264: H.264, also known as MPEG-4 AVC (Advanced Video Coding), is a video compression standard that offers significantly greater compression than its predecessors. The standard is expected to offer up to twice the compression of the current MPEG-4 ASP (Advanced Simple Profile), in addition to improvements in perceptual quality. The H.264 standard can provide DVD-quality video at under 1 Mbps, and is considered promising for full-motion video over wireless, satellite, and ADSL Internet connections.
VRS/VRI Service Providers
Currently, there are several national providers of video relay services (VRS). The FCC maintains a list of providers at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs_providers.html.
A few are listed below:
AT&T (www.attvrs.com)
CSDVRS (www.csdvrs.com)
Hamilton (www.hamiltonrelay.com)
Hands On Video Relay (www.hovrs.com)
IP Relay VRS (www.ip-vrs.com/index.html )
Sorenson (www.sorensonvrs.com)
Sprint (www.sprintvrs.com)
Some of the national providers of video remote interpreting services (VRI) are:
Communication Access Center (www.cacdhh.org)
Communication Access Network (www.caninterpreters.com/vri/)
Hands On (http://www.handsonsvs.com)
Interpreters, Inc. (www.interpretersinc.com)
Sign Language Associates (www.signlanguage.com/clients/video.php)
Sign On (www.signonasl.com/video.htm)
Sorenson (www.sorensonvri.com)
Costs
Although VRS service is currently free to consumers, there are huge variations in costs of telephone connections, cable lines, computers and their peripherals. It is impossible to provide an exact cost of the set-up of the hardware and software needed for Video Interpreting capabilities. The cost of the VRI service varies and is charged on a per minute or a per hour rate.
Some Programs/Projects in Existence
Alabama: The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services currently uses seventeen VRS units in various locations across the state. Their goal is to provide videophone units in 30 VR offices.
California: Now utilizes D-Link videophones in three Deaf & Hard of Hearing Services Section offices. Their plan is to purchase 48 D-Link videophones, TVs and DSL lines to be used by the Rehabilitation Counselors for the Deaf across the state.
Georgia: The Department of Labor/Vocational Rehabilitation Program has now completed phase one of their VRI project. There are seven sites around the state using the OJO unit for remote interpreting needs. Phase two is set to begin within a few months. The goal is to have the equipment to provide VRS and VRI in every VR office across the state.
Kentucky: Created by a Department of Commerce Technology Opportunities grant, the Kentucky Deaf Access Consortium has piloted a video based interpreting service delivery system. The Consortium members are Kentucky’s Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, Kentucky’s Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and the Center on Deafness and Hearing Loss at Eastern Kentucky University. The Consortium has established 28 “deaf access stations” across the state, most of them in Vocational Rehabilitation and Mental Health offices. Not only are Deaf consumers using Video Interpreting to receive vocational rehabilitation and mental health services, vocational rehabilitation counselors for the Deaf and the mental health counselors are using the system for internal meetings. Six ‘deaf access stations’ are considered public and are managed by the Commission; these sites allow any Deaf person to access the station for personal use. The four higher education sites are managed by Eastern Kentucky University, the recipient of the grant, and are used by Deaf faculty, staff and students for business and academic purposes.
Minnesota: Since 2000, Minnesota’s State Department of Workforce Services has piloted a video relay phone service to facilitate Department interactions with Deaf clients (Latz, 2002). However, the service was stopped in September 2004 due to high cost and low user volume (Latz, 2004).
Texas: The Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services has installed video phones in forty-three VR offices. Additional videophones will be added as the need arises. They are exploring the use of VRI and are initiating a bidding process for potential providers.
Utah: The Utah Deaf Videoconferencing Model uses videoconferencing for a number of purposes: planning meetings, monthly RCD meetings, in-take evaluations, and mental health counseling (Johnson, 2004). Much like the Kentucky project, the Utah Model is a partnership among postsecondary education, mental health, vocational rehabilitation, and private interpreter agencies (Johnson, 2004).
Technical Problems
Video interpreting demands that a large amount of data be transmitted in a short period of time. As such, the recommended amount of bandwidth is 384kbps. The primary consideration for any video interpreted session is how many frames per second are being transmitted. Good quality requires a minimum of 30 frames per second. Without high speed bandwidth, the signed communication, and potentially the spoken communication, will lag, causing choppy signs and/or irregular pauses in communication.
Dedicated ISDN, Cable or T1 lines provide a clearer picture, as it will not be subject to the amount of traffic on the lines being shared by other systems.
Information technology (IT) presents its own set of security concerns. As such, most businesses and agencies maintain firewalls that limit what type of telecommunications interactions can occur within their closed networks. Often, the ports which allow video interpreting to occur are not opened within these networks, thus preventing access to the service. Users of video interpreting have to request that the ports be opened and remain open. Thus it is wise to build strong working relationships with the IT staffs members who oversee firewall policy and maintenance and to educate them on the need and advantages of this technology for Deaf consumers.
Addressing Confidentiality and Privacy
The FCC issued a public notice clarifying that doctors, counselors and other professionals could communicate with patients through videoconferencing and relay services without violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA was instituted to protect patient and consumer privacy. Counselors, consumers, and interpreters need to realize that the two most common standards of connectivity (H.320 and H.323*) are not considered secure by default. Organizations and companies that offer video based communication for Deaf consumers are required to maintain appropriate technical and physical security measures to ensure confidentiality of the information and material transmitted.
*(Technical description: H.320 is an International Telecommunications Union (ITU) standard that: enables interoperability among videoconferencing equipment from different manufacturers over circuit-switched services such as ISDN, thus making desktop videoconferencing viable; establishes the common formats necessary to make audio and video inputs and outputs compatible and defines a protocol that makes it possible for a multimedia terminal to use audio/visual communications. H.323 is a protocol for the transmission of real-time audio, video and data information over packet switching-based networks, such as the Internet. It is applied to multipoint-multimedia communications which can be used in consumer, business and entertainment applications. Session Initiated Protocol (SIP) is a signaling protocol for Internet conferencing, telephony, presence, event notification and instant messaging. This is what Voice-Over IP (VoIP) uses typically.)
Environmental Concerns
When preparing offices, conference rooms, or other workspaces for video interpreting, there are specific environmental and/or physical concerns that have to be addressed. Quality lighting and acoustics are the foundation of a successful video interpreting session. Without proper lighting and sound, difficulty in signing, hearing, speaking, and responding will arise, leading to user frustration and possible miscommunication. Thus, as discussed above, the need for microphones and cameras that can carry the capability of the technology are musts.
Another consideration is the visual “noise.” Open windows; calendars, pictures, and other wall hangings; desk items such as books and binders; and any background movement can distract the users and disrupt the communication flow. Higher-end cameras will have controls, such as zoom, that can be used to adjust the images to reduce or eliminate some of these visual “noises.” Just as visual”noise” can be distracting for all users; auditory noise can be distracting for hearing users.
Other physical consideration when planning for video interpreting are color and lighting. Colors that contrast with skin tone tend to offer the best backdrop for signing, and lighting should be arranged to illuminate the participants’ hands and faces. However, the traditional black clothing for Caucasian interpreters and white clothing for African American interpreters are often not the best colors for VRS and VRI.
Fatigue: Studies have shown that, when compared to face-to-face interpreting, video interpreters experience a decline in performance after 15-18 minutes as opposed to the decline after 30 minutes for in-person interpreting. (Moser-Mercer May, 2003) Remote interpreters should have shorter time periods of interpreting with more frequent breaks.
Implications for Vocational Rehabilitation
As video based technologies and services grow and are more commonly understood by practitioners and consumers, the request for these services will grow. Just as “PC” (personal computer) entered our daily jargon 15 years ago and ”IM” (instant messaging) entered it 5 years ago, so, too, will VRS and VRI become daily abbreviations we use without giving them a second thought. Anticipating this growth, vocational rehabilitation providers need to consider how the technology will impact the way in which services are delivered via long-distance, e.g., video-based communication.
For example, the Kentucky Deaf Access Consortium’s research found that eight (8) staff interpreters who work for the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) traveled 41,878 miles between October 1, 2004, and December 31, 2004, for a travel cost of $17,728. Looking at the purposes for the travel, researchers see that it was primarily for the provision of interpreting services to RCDs (Rehabilitation Counselor for the Deaf) and Deaf consumers. Providing the interpreters with video interpreting capabilities at their home OVR site could eliminate much of that travel.
The savings realized through decreased travel makes video interpreting appealing to many, especially those on whose shoulders falls the decision to allocate resource dollars. However, it should be noted that the most sensitive of topics are still best addressed in face-to-face meetings; these would include courtroom cases, certain medical situations, psychological evaluations and certain educational situations.
That being said, what are appropriate uses of this technology for vocational rehabilitation (VR) settings? In Kentucky and Utah, the RCDs and other internal staff are already using the system as a tool for daily communication and for trainings and meetings. Both states have also used the system on a more limited basis to provide mental health counseling and VR counseling. During these sessions, other applications, such as chat, multi-conferencing, and filesharing, could easily be added.
Thus, perhaps the best way to define and summarize potential uses is immediate communication, collaboration and coordination. For example, as a thoroughfare to immediate communication, video communication technology allows for instant one-on-one communication between an RCD and a Deaf consumer. The RCD can provide information or recommendations in the native signed language without any wait. This is especially true in the more rural areas where RCDs often have large service territories; in such situations, the technology means the Deaf consumer can have more frequent and effective contact without having to wait on the RCD to travel. Collaboration and coordination allow for training, perhaps of a new RCD who needs to quickly familiarize herself with fellow staff, agency protocol, required tasks, etc. In short, video based communication can provide a timelier, cost-effective response, especially for those staff and consumers in rural locales where the availability of interpreters is most limited.
The former Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services for the U.S. Department of Education, Judy Heumann, said, “For people without disabilities, technology makes things convenient, whereas for people with disabilities, it makes things possible” (2000). Video based communication holds great possibilities for provision of service to the Deaf in the face of critical interpreter shortages, especially in the most isolated areas.
Questions for vendors:
As your vocational rehabilitation program considers providing Video Remote Interpreting services it is suggested that you ask the following questions:
1) What is the hourly rate for your VRI service? Do you bill in 15-minute increments?
2) What, if any, equipment do you provide? If you provide equipment, who pays for shipping? Who owns that equipment and who is responsible for repair?
3) Is technical support included in your service provision? If so, is there a charge?
4) Will you provide training for staff? If so, is there a charge?
5) How much advance notice do you need in order to fill a VRI service request?
6) Do you provide “on-demand” service? Is there a higher rate for”last-minute” VRI requests?
7) What is your cancellation policy?
8) What training do your interpreters go through to familiarize themselves with this delivery model?
9) Can you provide three references from agencies/individuals that have used your service?
10) What opportunities do consumers have to provide feedback about their experiences?
11) Does your state’s licensure law allow for or apply in this situation?
Conclusion
No doubt, video relay services and video remote interpreting services are spreading quickly across the nation. Signing Deaf consumers have easy access to communication in a way now that has never before been available. These services are definitely changing the way we all think in terms of accessibility to communication with this population. Historically, many areas of the country have experienced a shortage of qualified sign language interpreters. Video relay call centers are now opening at a rapid rate in many states. As these centers open and interpreters are hired by the VRS providers, the shortage of available interpreters for on-site community and educational requests are even more dramatic. Many areas are experiencing a critical shortage of qualified sign language interpreters to provide face-to-face service for vocational rehabilitation clients and staff. One solution appears to be to encourage more and more individuals to pursue training and consider interpreting as a career. This is not a “quick fix” but will allow for a way to assist in meeting future demands. Sadly, federal funds for interpreter training programs are being drastically cut at a time when the demands are the greatest for qualified sign language interpreters. It is crucial that agencies investigate ways to fund more training programs so that there will be qualified interpreters in the field to meet both the community and VRS/VRI needs.
Title IV of the 1990 ADA was designed by Congress to provide Deaf and hard of hearing persons with access to the telephone system. At that time, telephone lines were configured as”pots” (plain old telephone service lines), and the technologies of the Internet, wireless environments, and video interpreting were not even on the telecommunications horizon. A closer look at Title IV identifies the key concept of ”functionally equivalent,” meaning, in this case, that the service or device responsible for the telecommunication access must be as functionally accessible and equivalent as it is to a hearing person. Applied to video based communication, this concept requires that agencies and service providers research and provide service delivery mechanisms that are the timeliest, the most cost-effective, and the most deaf-friendly. Video interpreting should now be considered as the mechanism that can and will provide a larger and more effective array of services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing consumers, while quite possibly saving money. Thus, vocational rehabilitation agencies should consider purchase and use of this technology.
For more information contact:
Rebecca Sills Rebecca.Sills@dol.state.ga.us
Patty Conway PattyC.Conway@ky.gov
Video Interpreting Committee: Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf: http://www.rid.org/VideoInterpretingTalkingPoints.pdf
