Dr. Stoll, if I understood correctly, the sound management on the Zoom platform is done by algorithms. However, if it were done by sound engineers, it would be better. Is that right?
I didn't hear your answer, but I saw you nodding your head in agreement.
We could ask Zoom to adjust using sound engineers instead of algorithms, which would improve things.
As some of my colleagues have raised, and as you mentioned in your conclusion, interpreters should be exposed to toxic sounds as little as possible. There are two solutions to this: to have many more interpreters, which seems difficult to achieve since there is a shortage of interpreters, or to reduce the number of interventions to be translated. In fact, the Translation Bureau is currently moving in a direction that is not compatible with these orientations.
Do you think it's realistic to consider increasing the number of interpreters? You probably can't answer this question, because Europe may not have the same shortage.
The other thing is not to talk too fast. Maybe we should lengthen the time allocated to each intervention. We often speak quickly because we only have 35 seconds, for example, to ask our questions. Extending the speaking time and providing the text of our intervention could be part of the solution.
According to statistics, 70% of interpreters report having suffered injuries. Do you think this justifies changes to the current way of doing things, either by reducing the amount of time interpreters work, increasing the amount of intervention time allocated to each participant, or making technical improvements?