Presentation given by Joshua Goldsmith at Translation and the Computer 39 in London, England. November 17, 2017 https://www.asling.org/tc39/

1. A comparative user evaluation of tablets
and tools for consecutive interpreters
Joshua Goldsmith
University of Geneva
jg@joshgoldsmith.com
@Goldsmith_Josh
1

2. Tablet interpreting: A definition
“Using a tablet to support interpreting”
(Goldsmith, in press)
2

3. Are tablets the “ideal boothmate”? (Hof 2012)
● Practitioners examine pros and cons of tablets (Drechsel 2013a, 2013b, 2017; Drechsel
& Behl 2016; Goldsmith & Drechsel 2015a, 2015b, 2016; Scott 2012)
● Interpreters describe testing and using tablets for note-taking (Behl 2013a,
2013b, 2015; Rosado 2013)
● Practitioners provide concrete recommendations for applications,
styluses and tablets (Goldsmith & Drechsel 2016, 2017; Rosado 2013)
3

4. Academic literature on tablet interpreting
● “More and more interpreters are turning to mobile devices to take notes”
(Costa, Corpas Pastor & Durán Muñoz 2014b: 31)
● Mapping the field of interpreters using tablets for consecutive (Goldsmith &
Holley 2015)
● Survey: Use of mobile devices for simultaneous (Paone 2016)
● Experimental study: effect of training on acquisition of tablet interpreting
skills for consecutive (Oceguera López, 2017)
4

5. Simultaneous consecutive interpreting
● Record a speech that would normally be rendered in consecutive mode,
play it back using headphones and render using simultaneous mode
● Findings:
○ “More fluid delivery, closer source-target correspondence” (Hamidi & Pöchhacker 2007:14)
○ Greater accuracy, fewer “disfluencies,” greater interpreter confidence, more complete
rendition (Orlando 2014)
○ Digital pen for training budding interpreters promotes metacognition, identification of
gaps, designing strategies to address them (Orlando 2015a; 2015b)
● Tablet and stylus can be used for simultaneous-consecutive (El-Metwally 2017)
5

6. Methodology
6

7. Phase one: Goldsmith & Holley (2015)
● Mixed multi-phase mixed methods study:
○ Map the field of those using tablets for consecutive interpreting
○ Develop an instrument to evaluation tools and technology available
● Phase 1
○ Six-in depth interviews (exploratory design phase) to develop an instrument (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson 2003)
○ Derive inductive codes, analyze with NVivo
● Result
○ Set of features to consider when assessing tablets, applications and styluses
7

8. Research questions
1. Which features of tablets, note-taking applications, and styluses are most
important for tablet interpreters working in the consecutive mode?
2. Which tools on the market offer the greatest number of these features?
8

9. User evaluations in terminology management
Costa, Corpas Pastor, Duran Muñoz (2014a)
● Literature review + description of 8
terminology management programs
● Up to 10 points for 5 “fundamental”
features
● Up to 5 points for 10 “secondary”
features
Will (2015)
● Four “generally available and utilized”
terminology management tools
● Three criteria: view, data processing,
operation and use
● 0 to 5 points:
○ “not implemented or recognizable” (0)
○ “insufficient” (1),
○ “sufficient” (2),
○ “satisfactory” (3),
○ “good” (4)
○ “very good”
9

10. Shortcomings of these user evaluations (2)
● Tools selected based on researcher perception of relevance
● No clear criteria for determining which features more relevant (e.g. 5 vs.
10 points in Costa et al)
● Non-scientific point scales / unclear criteria
● Difference between ordinal Likert values not always equal (Sullivan &
Artino 2013)
--> Methodology adapted tried to mitigate these issues
10

11. Methodology
● Interviews to determine relevant features (Goldsmith & Holley 2015)
● Questionnaire distributed to practicing tablet interpreters
● 0 - 5 scale: “How important are each of these features for you”?
● Responses averaged to derive a weighting coefficient
● Practitioners indicated the tools they use - these considered to be the
“leading tools on the market”
● Presence (1) / absence (0) of feature multiplied by weighting coefficient;
total values averaged to derive final score for each tool
● Informed consent; confidential; online survey tool
11

12. Population
12

13. Population
● 11 respondents; 1 full-time translator excluded from results
● Age: 27 - 57 (x̅ = 42)
● Professional domicile: North America (25%), Europe (75%)
● Most were members of at least one T&I association (80%)
● 90% had two active languages; most had additional passive languages (x̅ =
2.1)
13

14. Contexts in which respondents worked
● Conference interpreting (70%)
● Diplomatic interpreting (50%)
● Community interpreting (40%)
● Legal / court interpreting (40%)
● Medical interpreting (40%)
● Business interpreting (30%)
● Media interpreting (20%)
14

15. Experience
● Years of professional experience (3 - 32; x̅ = 13.7)
● Years of tablet interpreting experience in the consecutive mode (2 - 7; x̅ =
4.6)
● Average days of consecutive per month: x̅ = 4.6
● Number of consecutive assignments where tablets used: over 1300 (x̅ =
165.6)
15

16. Results
16

17. Tablets used
● 90% iPad; 1 Microsoft Surface
● 50% iPad Pro (10% 9.7”, 20% 10.5”; 10% 12.9”)
● iPad Air (10%)
● iPad mini (10%)
● iPad 2 (10%)
--> Tablet interpreters used tablets offering a variety of form factors
--> Surprisingly, most tablet interpreters use iPads
17

18. Styluses used
● 60% use first-party styluses (50% Apple Pencil; 10% Surface Pen)
● Third party-styluses:
○ 53 Pencil
○ Apex
○ Wacom Bamboo
○ Maglus
○ “None” --> using a finger for note-taking?
18

19. Operating system
● Nearly all used the most up-to-date OS
● iOS 11 released just 3 weeks before
--> Tablet interpreters tend to be early adopters of technology
19

20. Note-taking applications used
● Notability (60%)
● Noteshelf (30%)
● Penultimate (30%)
● Bamboo Paper (20%)
● iOS Notes (20%)
● AudioNote (10%)
● GoodNotes (10%)
● Whink (10%)
● Nebo (10%) - Surface Pro
--> Users use a variety of note-taking applications
20

21. Applications used for support while taking notes
● Document annotation apps
○ Readdle Documents (30%)
○ Adobe Reader (10%)
● Dictionary applications
○ Linguee (30%)
○ WordReference (10%)
● Glossary applications
○ Interplex (10%)
○ BoothMate for Interpreters’ Help (10%)
○ Proz.com through web browser (10%)
○ iBooks (10%)
● Word processing and office suites
○ Mobisystems (10%)
● Web-browser (20%) 21

22. Rating of tablet features
22

23. Rating of note-taking application features
23

24. Rating of stylus features
24

25. User evaluation of note-taking applications for
consecutive interpreting
25

26. 26

27. 27
Hands-on demonstration

28. 28
Conclusions

29. Conclusions (1)
29
● First comparative user evaluation of tools used by tablet interpreters
working in consecutive mode
● Pilot study; results not statistically significant or generalizable
● Interpreters seeks tablets, note-taking applications and styluses that:
○ are reliable, durable, and comfortable to use
○ offer a smooth writing experience
○ result in clear, easy-to-read notes
● Interpreters are willing to invest in professional tools for professional
work

30. Conclusions (2)
● iPad Pro used most frequently
● Various form factors
● First-party styluses, especially Apple Pencil, preferred
● Notability the most popular note-taking application
● GoodNotes, Notability, Noteshelf, and Penultimate scored similarly; all
offer the widest range of features for tablet interpreting
30

31. Conclusions (3)
● Novel methodology for user evaluations:
○ Broad, interview-based mapping of the field to determine relevant features
○ Survey of practitioners to rank and weight features and determine what tools are used
○ Test tools to determine which features are present; multiply by coefficient to derive total
scores
● Useful guide for picking the tablets, applications and styluses that best
meet needs of practicing interpreters
● Could shape future training courses on tablet interpreting
31

32. Q&A
jg@joshgoldsmith.com
@Goldsmith_Josh
32

33. Thank you!
jg@joshgoldsmith.com
@Goldsmith_Josh
33

34. References (1)
Behl, Holly. 2013a. The paperless interpreter experiment: Part I. http://www.paperlessinterpreter.com/paperless-interpreter-part-i/
Behl, Holly. 2013b. The paperless interpreter experiment: Part II. http://www.paperlessinterpreter.com/paperless-interpreter-part-ii/
Behl, Holly. 2015. The paperless interpreter experiment Part III: Microsoft Surface Pro 4.
http://www.paperlessinterpreter.com/the-paperless-interpreter-experiment-part-iii-microsoft-surface-pro-4/
Creswell, John W., & Plano Clark, Vicki L. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE
Publications.
Creswell, John W., Plano Clark, Vicki L., Gutmann, Michelle L., & Hanson, William E. 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Abbas
Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Costa, Hernani, Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Durán Muñoz, Isabel. 2014. “A comparative user evaluation of terminology management tools for
interpreters.” In 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’ 14), 4th International Workshop on Computational
Terminology (CompuTerm'14), pp. 68–76, Dublin, Ireland.
Costa, Hernani, Corpas Pastor, Gloria & Durán Muñoz, Isabel. 2014. “Technology-assisted interpreting.” Multilingual 143, 27-32.
Drechsel, Alexander. 2013a. The tablet interpreter. http://vkdblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tabletinterpreter-public.pdf
Drechsel, Alexander. 2013b, November 20. iPad interpreter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk3RNDGpe0Y&list=PLklixbOFpKxodoeh8lua0Zh9BkeI4GwLo&index=4.
Drechsel, Alexander. 2017. The tablet interpreter. (2017 edition).
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52d4015ce4b0eab6f2d76b6f/t/594b8b7a414fb54310f5957d/1498123132497/The+Tablet+Interpreter+
Manual.pdf
Drechsel, Alexander & Behl, Holly. 2016. Kiss paper goodbye: Tablet technology for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. Paper
presented at the ATA 57th
Annual Conference, San Francisco, California. 34

35. References (2)
Drechsel, Alexander & Goldsmith, Joshua. Forthcoming. Tablet Interpreting: The use of mobile devices in interpreting. In CIUTI-Forum 2016:
Equitable Education through intercultural communication: Role and responsibility for non-state actors (eds. Forstner, Martin & Lee-Jahnke,
Hannelore). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
El-Metwally, Maha. 2017. Consec-Simo as a tool for Consecutive Interpreting. Webinar presented online through eCPD webinars.
Goldsmith, Joshua. Forthcoming 2018. Tablet interpreting: Consecutive interpreting 2.0 for Public Service Interpreters. Translation and
Interpreting Studies 13(3).
Goldsmith, Joshua & Drechsel, Alexander. 2015a. The tablet interpreter. Talk presented at the 2015 CIUTI Conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
Goldsmith, Joshua & Drechsel, Alexander. 2015b. Is there an app for that? Getting the most out of tablets in community interpreting.
Workshop presented at the 2015 Critical Link Conference, Edinburgh.
Goldsmith, Joshua & Drechsel, Alexander. 2016. Tablet interpreting: Tips, tools and applications to make the most of your tablet while
interpreting. Webinar presented at the Proz 2016 Virtual Conference for International Translation Day.
Goldsmith, Joshua & Holley, Josephine. 2015. Consecutive Interpreting 2.0: The Tablet Interpreting Experience.” (Unpublished MA thesis.)
University of Geneva.
Hamidi, Miriam & Pöchhacker, Franz. 2007. “Simultaneous consecutive interpreting: A new technique put to the test.” Meta: Journal des
traducteurs (52.2), 276-289.
Hof, Michelle. 2012. iPad: The ideal boothmate. http://aiic.net/p/6354.
Lozano, Luis, García-Cueto, Eduardo & Muñiz, José. 2008. “Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating
scales.” Methodology 2008:4, 73-79.
Moors, Guy. 2007. “Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude management.” Quality & Quantity 42:6,
779-794.
Muñiz, José, García-Cueto, Eduardo, & Lozano, Luis. 2005. “Item format and the psychometric properties of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire.” Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 61–69. 35

36. References (3)
Oceguera López, Patricia. 2017. El uso de aplicaciones para tablets en la toma de notas del intérprete. (Unpublished BA thesis.) Universidad
Autónoma de Baja California, Mexico.
Orlando, Marc. 2010. “Digital Pen Technology and Consecutive Interpreting: Another Dimension in Note-Taking Training and Assessment.” The
Interpreters’ Newsletter 15, 71-86.
Orlando, Marc. 2014. “A study on the amenability of digital pen technology in a hybrid mode of interpreting: Consec-simul with notes.”
International Journal of Translation and Interpreting Research 6(2), 39-54. http://www.trans-int.org/index.php/transint.
Orlando, Marc. 2015. “Implementing digital pen technology in the consecutive interpreting classroom.” In Andres, Dorte & Behr, Martina
(eds.). To Know How to Suggest ... Approaches to Teaching Conference Interpreting, 171-200. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Orlando, Marc. 2015. “Digital pen technology and interpreting training, practice and research: Status and trends.” In S. Erlich and J. Napier
(Eds.), Interpreter education in the digital age: Innovation, access and change, 125–152. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Orlando, Marc. 2016. Training 21st
century translators and interpreters: At the crossroads of practice, research and pedagogy. Berlin: Frank &
Timme.
Paone, Matteo Domenico. 2016. Mobile Geräte beim Simultandolmetschen mit besonderem Bezug auf Tablets (Unpublished MA thesis.)
University of Vienna, Austria.
Rosado, Tony. 2013. Note-taking with iPad: Making our life easier.
http://rpstranslations.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/note-taking-with-ipad-making-our-life-easier-2/
Scott, Juliette. 2012. One interpreter’s road kit. http://www.catherinetranslates.com/interpreter-road-kit
Sullivan, Gail, & Artino, Anthony Jr. 2013. “Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education 5(4):
541-2.
Will, Martin. 2015. “Zur Eignung simultanfähiger Terminologiesysteme für das Konferenzdolmetschen.” trans-kom 8(1), 179-201.
36