AIIC is committed to developing and adopting evidence-based working conditions through methodical testing to assure both quality of interpretation and interpreter wellbeing.
The rapid development of ICTs has led to profound changes in the working environment of many professions. Companies now offer employees the possibility of working at home, and video and web conferencing are increasingly common. Today interpreters need to weigh the pros and cons of remote interpreting – and need more information to do so.
Remote interpreting is not ‘business as usual’ ― which just happens to take place in a dimly lit room replete with screens and monitors ― but a completely different new modus operandi for the interpre
Draft checklist of questions one might ask when offered an interpretation assignment over the Internet
AIDE-MÉMOIRE À L'INTENTION DES ORGANISATEURS
With the rapid development of technology, videoconferencing is finding applications in every sector of the economy and is becoming a familiar instrument for communication.
An early experiment was carried out by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in 1992 with the cooperation of the AIIC Technical and Health Committee.
Efficient communication in remote conferencing is best served by all interpreters being at the same location as the speakers.
Recently I came across an article in Le Soir announcing that the University of Mons had come up with a new video interpreting system, and saying that unlike past attempts, this one really works. Let’s take a look behind the PR and see what we really have here.
It is said that interpreters do not like to interpret videoconferences, and you may wonder why. Well, the main reason is, or was, that the sound and images transmitted through a videolink into the conference room were often poor and faulty, e.g. the sound fades or drops away completely for a few seconds, or the image is not synchronised with the sound. All this makes it even harder for interpreters to do an already difficult job.