Is video something you should consider for interpreting?

When you’ve got access to interpreters who can be physically present at your meeting or consultation, then that’s probably still the best option for all parties. But there are times when you may not be able to find someone local, or when your client insists on having an interpreter who is not from the local community. What are the pros and cons, then, of using video versus connecting by phone?

Without doubt, the technical capability needs to be in place before you start even thinking about interpreting via video link. In essence, that means having access to high speed broadband, having devices with cameras and microphones, and being permitted to use third-party software such as Google Meet or Zoom or MS Teams. Our research tells us that such software is encrypted and potentially more secure than the average mobile phone, but it is also true that some organisations are still averse to allowing access.

Generally, it’s also easier to work with video when your equipment is set up in advance, so while mobile devices can seem like an attractive option, they do have their limitations. This is particularly the case when wi-fi is not strong or is heavily used, making connection slow.

Not only you but also the interpreter needs to have the technical capability. On top of that, the interpreter needs to have a quiet space where others cannot overlook the interaction. Quiet is also necessary for phone, but with no camera or video to worry about, there are potentially fewer risks to confidentiality.

What phone interpreting allows is greater anonymity and it is usually more quickly available than either video or face to face. For urgent appointments or seriously worried clients, phone interpreting could be the best option.

So why even consider video? The advantages are these:

• It allows all parties to see visual cues, which helps the interpreter in particular. In the end, this could result in a more fluent conversational flow.

• On many occasions the sound quality through video applications is much better than a standard telephone handset in speaker mode, and it is certainly a better option than passing a telephone handset between the parties.

• For the non-English speaker, seeing the interpreter can be reassuring which may, on occasion, assist with the ease of the exchange and the amount of information he or she is willing to share.

It is quite possible you already have all of the technical capability in place – a great many workplaces do. If you’re in that category, why not give video interpreting a go? We’d be happy to give you a free trial.