Zooming in: Interpreters’ perspective towards remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) ergonomics

Öz

This paper examines the usability of the Zoom platform from the perspective of professional conference interpreters. In the aftermath of lockdowns and travel restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic, Remote Simultaneous Interpreting (RSI) rushed into the lives of conference interpreters. This gave rise to the development of several Simultaneous Interpreting Delivery Platforms (SIDPs). They have in time become the new offices of practicing interpreters, each requiring a new set of skills and quick adaptation in a short period of time. Zoom, although not an SIDP but rather an online meeting platform, also offers interpretation features and is at the moment the most common platform used also for remote simultaneous interpreting worldwide. In order to assess the usability of the platform by the conference interpreters, the study applied the USE questionnaire developed in 2001 by Lund based on three pillars - Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use – on professional conference interpreters in Turkey. The findings suggest that the Zoom platform has high usability scores. Coupled with this there is also significant appetite among the interpreters towards the improvement of the platform, which could be an indicator of interpreters’ desire to better the existing RSI ergonomics. In conclusion, the paper also points to future areas of required research in relation to ergonomics of remote interpreting.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• remote simultaneous interpreting
• ergonomics
• usability
• ease of use
• SIDPs

Uzaktan Sözlü Çeviride (USÇ) Ergonomi: Zoom Kullanımına Çevirmen Bakış Açısı

Öz

Bu makale, Zoom platformunun kullanılabilirliğini profesyonel konferans çevirmenlerinin bakış açısından incelemektedir. Covid-19 salgını sırasında uygulanan sokağa çıkma ve seyahat kısıtlamalarının ardından Uzaktan Simultane Çeviri (USÇ), konferans çevirmenlerinin hayatına hızlıca girmiştir. Bu durum çeşitli Simultane Çeviri Platformunun (SIDP'ler) geliştirilmesine yol açmıştır. Konferans çevirmenleri yeni beceriler geliştirerek bu platformlara hızlıca uyum sağlamak zorunda kalmıştır. Kendisini bir SIDP olarak tanımlamayan Zoom platformu, çevrimiçi bir toplantı platformu olup, uzaktan simültane çeviri imkanı da sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Zoom platformunun kullanılabilirliğini değerlendirmek için 2001 yılında Lund tarafından üç ölçüte (Yararlılık, Memnuniyet ve Kullanım Kolaylığı) dayalı olarak geliştirilen USE anketini orijinal dili olan İngilizce olarak Türkiye'deki profesyonel konferans çevirmenlerine uygulamıştır. Bulgular, Zoom platformunun yüksek kullanılabilirlik puanlarına sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, çevirmenler arasında platformun iyileştirilmesine yönelik hatırı sayılır bir istek de görülmüştür ve bu durum, çevirmenlerin mevcut USÇ ergonomisini iyileştirme arzusunun bir göstergesi olarak yorumlanabilir. Sonuç bölümünde makale aynı zamanda uzaktan çevirinin ergonomisiyle ilgili araştırma ihtiyacı olan alanları da ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ergonomi
• kullanılabilirlik
• kullanım kolaylığı
• eşzamanlı çeviri platformları
• uzaktan eşzamanlı çeviri

Kaynakça

1. About us. (n.d). Zoom. https://explore.zoom.us/en/about/.
2. Accessing meeting and phone statistics. (n.d). Zoom Support. https://support.zoom.us/hc/en- us/articles/202920719-Accessing-meeting-and-phone-statistics.
3. AIIC (2018, March 5). AIIC position on distance interpreting. https://aiic.org/document/4837/AIIC_position_on_TFDI_05.03.18.pdf
4. AIIC (2020, March 17). AIIC guidelines for distance interpreting (Version 1.0). https://aiic.org/document/4418/AIIC%20Guidelines%20for%20Distance%20Interpreting%20(Version%201.0)%20-%20ENG.pdf
5. AIIC (2020, March 18). AIIC best practices for interpreters during the covid-19 crisis. https://aiic.org/document/4840/AIIC%20best%20practices%20for%20interpreters%20during%20the%20Covid-19%20crisis%20-%20ENG.pdf
6. AIIC News. (2022, June 29). Press release - EU negotiating delegation. https://aiic.org/company/roster/companyRosterDetails.html?companyId=13146&companyRosterId=26.
7. Brady, A., & Pickles, M. (2022). Why remote interpretation doesn’t work for interpreters. UN Today. https://untoday.org/why-remote-interpretation-doesnt-work/
8. Braun, S. (2007). Interpreting in small-group bilingual videoconferences: Challenges and adaptation processes. Interpreting, 9(1), 21-46. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.9.1.03bra

9. Braun, S. (2015). Remote interpreting. In H. Mikkelson & R. Jourdenais (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interpreting (pp.352-367). Routledge.
10. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7
11. Bujan, M., & Collard, C. (2021). First overview of results, April 2021, Project: ESIT research project on remote simultaneous interpreting.
12. Caniato, A. (2021). AIIC Blog. RSI Sound Myth Buster: Ten Misconceptions that Result in RSI Sounding Terrible. https://aiic.org/site/blog/RSI-sound-myth-buster
13. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988, May). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In R. Grinter, T. Rodden, &P. Aoki (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 213-218). Association for Computing Machinery.
14. Christensen, J. M. (1987). Comments on products safety. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 31(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128703100101.
15. Dillon, A. (2001). Evaluation of software usability. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (pp. 1110-1112). Taylor & Francis.
16. Faria, T. V. M., Pavanelli, M., & Bernardes, J. L. (2016). Evaluating the usability using USE questionnaire: Mindboard system use case. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies (pp. 518–527). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_47
17. Filippidis, S. K., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2009). On the use of adaptive instructional images based on the sequential–global dimension of the Felder–Silverman learning style theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701869524
18. Gao, M., Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the use (usefulness, satisfaction, and ease of use) questionnaire for reliability and validity. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 62(1). http://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621322
19. Hashim, A. F. M., Hussin, H., Othman, M. H., & Ahmad, S. A. S. (2016). Usability evaluation of a desktop virtual reality prototype (DVRP) courseware to enhance knowledge on drug abuse. Journal of Techno Social, 8(1), 12–18.
20. Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002
21. Inghilleri, M. (2005). Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication. The Translator, 11(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2005.10799190
22. International Ergonomics Association. (n.d). What is Ergonomics? https://iea.cc/what-is-ergonomics/
23. International Organization for Standardization. (2017). Simultaneous Interpreting - Requirements for the quality and transmission of sound and image input to interpreters (ISO Standard No. 20108:2017). https://www.iso.org/standard/67062.html
24. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. (ISO Standard No. 9241-11:2018). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en
25. Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M., & Sumi, M. (1993). The software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol, 24(3), 210-2. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1993.tb00076.x
26. Kiselev, A., & Loutfi, A. (2012). Using a mental workload index as a measure of usability of a user interface for social robotic telepresence. In 2nd Workshop of Social Robotic Telepresence in Conjunction with IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication 2012. http://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4764.8963
27. Lewis, J. R. (1995). ) IBM Computer Usability Satisfaction Questionnaires: Psychometric Evaluation and Instructions for Use. International Journal of Human Computer Interactions, 7, 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110
28. Lund, Arnold M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability interface, 8(2), 3-6. Matthews-El, T. & Watts, R. (2022, October 10). Zoom Review 2022: Features, Pricing & More. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/zoom-review/
29. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Ergonomics. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October, 2022, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ergonomics
30. Moser-Mercer, B. (2003). Remote interpreting: Assessment of human factors and performance parameters. https://aiic.org/document/516/AI-ICWebzine_Summer2003_3_MOSER-MERCER_Remote_interpreting_Assessment_of_human_factors_and_performance_parameters_Original.pdf
31. Moser-Mercer, B. (2005), Remote interpreting: The crucial role of presence, Bulletin VALS-ASLA (Swiss association of applied linguistics), 81, 73-97.
32. Moser-Mercer, B. (2005). Remote interpreting: Issues of multi-sensory integration in a multilingual task. META, Special Issue On Processes And Pathways In Translation And Interpretation, 50(2), 727-738. https://doi.org/10.7202/011014ar
33. Mouzourakis, T. (2003, June 19). That feeling of being there: Vision and presence in remote interpreting. AIIC. http://www.aiic.net/community/print/default.cfm/page1173.
34. Mouzourakis, P. (2006). Remote interpreting: a technical perspective on recent experiments. Interpreting, 8(1), 45-66.
35. Nielsen Norman Group Conference, Amsterdam (2008). https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/key-question-in-user-experience-design-usability-vs-desirability%20.Nielsen, J., Molich, R., Snyder, C., & Farrell, S. (2000). E-commerce user experience. Nielsen Norman Group, 1-51.
36. Rennert, S. (2008). Visual input in simultaneous interpreting. Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators' Journal, 53(1), 204-217. https://doi.org/10.7202/017983ar
37. Roziner, I., & Shlesinger, M. (2010). Much ado about something remote: Stress and performance in remote interpreting. Interpreting, 12(2), 214-247. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.12.2.05roz
38. Salameh, Z. (2017). Attitudes towards Facebook and the use of knowledge and skills among students in the English department at the University of Hail. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(8), 1–6.
39. Saldanha, G., & O'Brien, S. (2014). Research methodologies in translation studies. Routledge.
40. Simões-Marques, M., & Nunes, I. L. (2012). Usability of interfaces. In I. L. Nunes (Ed.), Ergonomics-A systems approach (pp. 155-170). InTech.
41. Sluchak, T. J. (1992). Ergonomics: Origins, focus, and implementation considerations. AAOHN Journal, 40(3), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507999204000302
42. Sullivan, L. (1896). The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, March, 403–409. https://archive.org/details/tallofficebuildi00sull
43. TKTD. (2020). TKTD Uzaktan sözlü çeviri anketi sonuç raporu. https://www.tktd.org/wp-content/uploads/TKTD_RSI-anketi-raporu_220620.pdf
44. Txabarriaga, R. (2022, June 30). EU Interpreters Suspend Remote Interpreting Services. Slator - Language Industry Intelligence. https://slator.com/eu-interpreters-suspend-remote-interpreting-services/
45. Wells, H. G. (1945). The Mind at the End of its Tether. William Heinemann Ltd.
46. Wiener, N. (2019). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT press.
47. Wise, J. (2022, December 7). Zoom Statistics: How many people use zoom? Earthweb. https://earthweb.com/zoom-statistics/
48. Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75-98. http://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802546716
49. Zaremba, H.-D. (1997). Évaluation des questionnaires Beaulieu. Expériences en automne 1995, Unpublished internal report, Brussels, European Commission – SCIC.
50. Ziegler, K., & Gigliobianco, S. (2018). Present? Remote? Remotely present! New technological approaches to remote simultaneous conference interpreting. In C. Fantinuoli (Ed.), Interpreting and technology (pp. 119-139). Language Science Press.