CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter begins with an overview of standards and standardization, including
definitions, types, and their importance, followed by a description of the standard ISO
2603:1998 Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation. Section 2.3 gives a description of
conference interpreting, which then leads to factors of quality in interpretation,
followed by the various factors which affect the quality of interpretation or
performance of interpreters. Of these various factors, this study will review in detail
the physical/environmental factors of the interpretation booth. Section 2.6 describes
the differences between various users of standards as pertains to this study. An
overview of post occupancy evaluation (POE), a discipline with similar purposes and
methods to this study, is presented in section 2.7. The final section provides a
summary of the literature review and introduces the research questions in the present
study.
2.1 Standards
Standards have been around for a long time, tracing back to ancient civilizations.
In the beginning, physical standards for weights and measures were developed out of
man’s need to measure things, creating a set of reference points for other objects. As
time went on, standards spread to commerce and trade (Spivak and Brenner, 2001).
With industrialization, technical progress, and expansion of trade, there appeared a
multitude of technical standards and specifications. Mass production and the
industrial revolution brought issues such as interchangeability, reducing product
variety, and increasing efficiency to the foreground (OECD, 1991). Today, standards
are everywhere.
2.1.1 Defining Standards
Standards are a form of regulation that allows people and organizations around
the world to coordinate and cooperate. “In the simplest sense, a standard is an
agreed-upon way of doing something” (Spivak and Brenner, 2001).
Several definitions for standard exist. Here, we will examine some of the
definitions laid down by formal standardization organizations and international
organizations, national standardization organizations, and individual studies.
Common features of these definitions include the “people” who establish standards
and the “purpose” for which it is established.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) define standard as “a document, established by
consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and
repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at
the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context” (ISO/IEC, 1996).
This definition has been adopted by CEN (European Committee for Standardization)
and CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization) in the
European standard EN 45020:2006 (as cited in de Vries, 1999).
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the precursor to the World
Trade Organization (WTO), provided the definition of standard as follows: “A
technical specification approved by a recognized standardizing body for the repeated
or continuous application, with which compliance is not mandatory” (GATT, 1979, as
cited in de Vries, 1999).
Government standardization organizations also issue different definitions of
standards. The Standards Act of Taiwan (1997), enforced by the Ministry of
Economic Affairs, defines standard as: “a document approved by a recognized body
and established by consensus, which provides, for common and repeated use, rules,
guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes or services.” The British
Standards Institution (BSI) gives the following definition: “A standard is a document
defining best practice, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body
(such as BSI).” Standards Australia defines standard as: “a published document
which sets out specification and procedures designed to ensure that a material,
product, method or service is fit for its purpose and consistently performs in the way
it was intended.”
De Vries (1999) compiles a number of different definitions for standards, one of
which is by Gaillard (1933, p. 23, as cited in de Vries, 1999), an acting general
director of the Dutch standardization institute and an employee of the American
Standards Association, who states “A standard is a formulation established verbally,
in writing or by other graphical method, or by means of a model, sample or other
physical means of representation, to serve during a certain period of time for defining,
designating or specifying certain features or a unit or basis of measurement, a
physical object, an action, a process, a method, a practice, a capacity, a function, a
performance, a measure, an arrangement, a condition, a duty, a right, a responsibility;
a behaviour, an attitude, a concept or a conception.”
The definitions above are compiled into the following table, adapted from de
Vries (1999) and modified for this study:
Table 2.1
Definition of Standards
Source Definition
‘Standard’ in ISO/IEC Guide 2
Document, established by the consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
GATT (1979);
EC (1983)
Technical specification approved by a recognized standardizing body for the repeated use and continuous application, with which compliance is not mandatory.
British Standards Institution (BSI)
A standard is a document defining best practice, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body
Standards Australia
A published document which sets out specification and
procedures designed to ensure that a material, product, method or service is fit for its purpose and consistently performs in the way it was intended.
‘Standard’ in Standards Act of Taiwan
A document approved by a recognized body and established by consensus, which provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for products or related processes or services.
Gaillard (1993) A formulation established verbally, in writing or by other graphical method, or by means of a model, sample or other physical means of representation, to serve during a certain period of time for defining, designating or specifying certain features of (…)
Source: Adopted and modified from de Vries, H. J. (1999) p. 149
Over the years, many institutions, agencies, and individuals have established
various definitions for standards. Generally speaking, most definitions agree that
standards are established by the consensus of a recognized body, intended for
common and repeated use, and aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of
order in a given context, such as improved efficiency, consistent performance, and
compatibility. An additional feature of standards is non-mandatory compliance, which
will be explored further in this chapter. The rest of this section will further discuss the
classification of standards.
2.1.2 Types of Standards
Much has been written on the many different classifications of standards. In this
section, this study will give a brief overview. Of the multitude of standardization
classifications, this paper will focus on entity-related classifications.
In order to begin to understand entity-related classifications, a clarification of the
term entity is needed. “An entity may be
- a person or group of persons;
- a ‘thing’ such as an object, an event, an idea or a process;
- a combination of the first two kinds of entities.” (de Vries, 1999; Dul and de
Vries, 2006)
De Vries (1999) distinguishes between basic standards, requiring standards, and
measurement standards. Basic standards describe interrelated entities as to facilitate
human communication about the entities, such as terminology standards. Requiring
standards regulate entities or relations between entities, and can be further divided
into performance standards, which set performance criteria but do not prescribe
solutions, and solution-describing standards, which describe solutions for matching
problems. Measurement standards provide methods to check whether requiring
standards have been met.
Simons (as cited in de Vries, 1999, p. 162) distinguishes among interference
standards, compatibility standards, and quality standards. Interference standards are
concerned with how an entity influences other entities, such as safety, health, or
environmental standards. Compatibility standards regulate how interrelated entities
should fit with one another in order to function together. Quality standards set
requirements regarding the properties of entities to ensure a certain level of quality.
Grindley (1995) makes the distinction between “quality standards, concerned
with the features of the product itself, and compatibility standards, concerned with
the links with other products and services”. Quality standards can be further divided
into minimum attributes and product characteristics.
Wiese (as cited in de Vries, 1999, p. 163) distinguishes between horizontal
compatibility, concerned with the fit between functionally equivalent entities, and
vertical compatibility, regarding the fit between functionally different entities.
Table 2.2
Entity-Related Classification of Standards
Type of Standard Definition
1. Basic Standards structured descriptions of interrelated entities to facilitate human communication about the entities
2. Requiring Standards set requirements for entities or relations between entities
2.1 Performance Standards set performance criteria for the solution of matching problems
- Interference Standards set requirements concerning the influence of an entity on other entities.
- Quality Standards set requirements for entity properties to assure a certain level of quality
2.2 Solution-Describing Standards
describe solutions for matching problems
- Interference Standards set requirements concerning the influence of an entity on other entities.
- Compatibility Standards concern fitting interrelated entities to one other, in order to enable them to function together
․Horizontal Standards concerns the fit between functionally equivalent objects
․Vertical Standards concerns the fit between functionally different things
- Quality Standards set requirements for entity properties to assure a certain level of quality
3. Measurement Standards provide methods to be used to check whether requiring standards have been met
Source: complied by this study
From the above studies, we can see that there are many different ways in which
to classify standards by entity. ISO 2603 Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation
includes basic standards and requiring standards. Measurement standards ensure
measurement accuracy and reliability, and is usually applied to mass produced
equipment, and as such, do not apply to built-in booths, which are site-specific and
not manufactured for mass consumption. The two types of requiring standards,
performance and solution-describing standards, are both included in ISO 2603. In
other words, some standards in ISO 2603 set performance criteria, such as “the
booths shall have easy access through a separate entrance from outside the hall, to
avoid the interpreters disturbing the meeting when coming and going”, while some
standards describe solutions, such as “the access corridor to the booths shall be at
least 1.50 m wide to allow for safe and quick passage.”
2.2 Standardization
For as long as there have been standards, there has been standardization. This
section will explore the definition of standardization, as well as its importance and
benefits.
2.2.1 Defining Standardization
At its most basic, standardization is the activity of making standards. There are
many definitions for standardization. As with the definitions of standards,
standardization definitions are also laid out at the formal and international level,
national level, and through individual studies. Just as standards are basically “an
agreed-upon way of doing something” (Spivak and Brenner, 2001), so standardization
is basically the act of establishing a solution for certain problems.
The ISO and IEC definition of standardization is “[the] activity of establishing,
with regard to actual or potential problems, provisions for common and repeated use,
aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context”, which
has also been adopted by CEN (European Committee for Standardization) and
CENELEC (European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization), as cited by
de Vries (1999).
According to Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), "the purpose of
standardisation is to provide reference documents which include solutions to technical
and commercial problems concerning products, goods and services repeatedly
encountered in relations between economic, scientific, technical and social partners"
(extract from Decree N° 84-74 of January 26, 1984, as cited in de Vries, 1999).
Barrie Dale and John Oakland (1991, as cited in de Vries, 1999) describe
standardization as “an activity to improve efficiency by brining consistency to the
products, services or processes. The activity generally consists of the processes of
formulating, issuing and implementing standards.”
Joseph Farrell and Garth Saloner (1987) define standardization as “a process by
which compatibility is attained.”
De Vries (1999) defines standardization as “[an] activity of establishing and
recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed
at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and
expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a
certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant.” In
addition to offering up his own definition, de Vries collected and compiled other
definition, adopted and modified for this study, into the following table: (de Vries,
1999, p. 149).
Table 2.3
Definitions of Standardization
Source Definition ISO/IEC Guide 2 Activity of establishing, with regard to actual or potential
problems, provisions for common and repeated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
Dale and Oakland (1991)
An activity to improve efficiency by bringing consistency to the products, services or processes.
Farrell and Saloner (1987)
A process by which compatibility is attained.
De Vries (1999) [an] activity of establishing and recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these solutions will be
repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant.
Source: compiled by this study
In conclusion, most of the definitions listed above agree that standardization is
an activity of establishing solutions (provisions, rules, guidelines, characteristics,
technical specifications, etc.) for problems. This can be done by unification,
simplification, and consistency, in order to achieve efficiency, compatibility, and the
optimum degree of order in a given context. The rest of this section will further
discuss the importance of standards.
2.2.2 Importance of Standardization
Standards are concerned with entities or relations between entities. As mentioned
previously in the classification of standards, an entity can be a person or group of
persons, or a “thing”, which could be an object, event, idea or process. Relations
between entities can include thing-thing, person-thing, or person-person (Dul and de
Vries, 2006). Thus, it could be said that standards apply to all aspects of our lives.
The pervasiveness of standards in our lives means that we are all users of
standards. Users can be categorized as direct users and indirect users. Direct users,
parties that read and apply standards, include designers and testers of products,
services, and processes, as well as advisors and regulators. Indirect users, parties that
have a stake in the application of the standard, include consumers, workers, special
interest groups, and the general public (Dul and de Vries, 2006). The difference
between direct and indirect users will be illustrated further in this chapter when
applied directly to booths for simultaneous interpretation.
Although there may be different priorities among direct or indirect users, it is
important to conform to requirements, or standards, from the outset, so that quality is
achieved from the beginning (Crosby, 1984). Not only does this ensure a higher level
of quality, it also avoids the price of nonconformance (PONC), which are all the
expenses involved in doing things wrong. In some cases, such as the case of
interpreting booths in this study, PONC is not born by the direct users, such as those
who commission the building of conference halls or architects who design them, but
rather by indirect users, such as interpreters and the audience dependent on their
performance. This will be discussed further in this chapter.
Standardization is important from a number of different perspectives, such as
competition, compatibility, efficiency, and quality. Kondo (1996) raises a crucial point
regarding the importance of standardization:
The necessity and importance of standardization (formulating and implementing
various standards governing the product quality and performance of work) is
emphasized from the standpoint of improving work efficiency and assuring
product quality.
This study would like to add that standardization is not only important for
improving work efficiency and product quality, but also for the quality of work which
depends on the quality of the product governed by the standard. It is important to
realize that the standardization of booths does not just improve the quality of the
booths themselves, but is also an important factor in the quality of interpretation and
performance of interpreters, as will be further discussed in Section 2.4.
2.3 Conference Interpreting
Before discussing conference interpreting, it is necessary to first define and
categorize the different modes of interpretation. One way of categorizing
interpreter-mediated events is by the communicative situation or context in which the
event occurs. These include conference interpreting (irrespective of whether it is
conducted in consecutive or simultaneous mode), court interpreting,
community/dialogue interpreting, and TV interpreting. Another parameter by which
we may categorize interpreter-mediated events is by the mode of delivery and
production (Alexieva, 1997). This category includes simultaneous interpreting,
chuchotage (whispering), consecutive interpreting, and liaison interpreting. “In
simultaneous interpreting (SI), the interpreter, using technical equipment, perceives a
sender’s source language (SL) message in segments, processes and renders it
immediately and continuously in the target language” (Kirchhoff, 1976). Chuchotage,
or whispering, is a form of simultaneous interpreting, where interpreters sit with one
or two delegates, and without booth or electronic equipment, ‘whispers’ the
interpretation to them (Taylor-Bouladon, 2007). In contrast with the two previous
interpretation modes, consecutive interpretation takes place when the interpreter
listens to the speaker while taking notes, then reproduces the speech in the target
language. Liaison interpreting is similar to consecutive interpreting, although it
usually is utilized in spontaneous, conversational discussions, rather than prepared
speeches or conferences (Alexieva, 1997).
Another type of interpretation that will be mentioned in this study is relay
interpretation, which is a type of simultaneous interpretation, but one in which the
interpreter cannot understand the language of the speaker, and instead relies on the
interpretation of a colleague, which he/she then interprets for the conference
participants. In the end, the conference participants receive a second-hand rendering
(Taylor-Bouladon, 2007).
Since conference interpreting refers to the act of interpretation in a conference
setting in either consecutive or simultaneous mode, and simultaneous interpreting
mainly refers to the mode of immediate and continuous interpretation, it is necessary
to state that, in this paper, the author uses the terms conference interpreting and
simultaneous interpreting (SI) interchangeably to refer to simultaneous interpreting in
a conference setting (within a booth), unless otherwise noted.
Conference interpreting is a highly complex activity, and not simply a matter of
repeating words and phrases in another language. This complex cognitive process
requires the interpreter to simultaneously listen, analyze, comprehend, translate, edit,
and reproduce a speaker’s utterances in real-time. All interpreters work with at least
two languages, which are constantly changing and evolving, requiring them to attain
and maintain a high level of proficiency. The task of the interpreter, therefore, is to
convey a message of the original sender in real time without loss of information
content (Büler, 1986).
During a conference, interpreters work in isolation within a sound-proof booth
for simultaneous interpretation (either built-in or mobile) with sound equipment. The
specifications of the booth are dependent on the factors that will affect the quality of
interpreting, which are described in the following section.
2.4 Quality Factors in Interpretation
Prior to exploring the issue of the factors affecting the conference interpreter or
quality of interpretation, it is first necessary to understand the issue of quality in
interpreting. Quality tends to be a relative term, depending on both objective and
subjective factors in interpreting, and on the position of the person(s) evaluating that
interpretation. Objective factors, such as working conditions and professional ethics,
are governed by professional associations.
The results of several studies based on interpreting quality from the user’s
perspective show that users of interpreting services focus mainly on accuracy of
content, terminology accuracy, synchronicity, rhetorical skills of the interpreter, voice,
and microphone discipline (Büler, 1986; Kopczynski, 1994; Moser, 1996). Other
factors found to affect quality assessment include native accent, pleasant voice,
fluency of delivery, logical cohesion of utterance, sense consistency with original
message, completeness of interpretation, correct grammatical usage, and use of
appropriate style (Büler, 1986).
Moser-Mercer (1996) proposes the notion of optimum quality:
Optimum quality in professional interpreting implies that an interpreter
provides a complete and accurate rendition of the original that does not distort
the original message and tries to capture any and all extralinguistic information
that the speaker might have provided subject to the constraints imposed by
certain external conditions.
Although most interpreters are sufficiently skilled to overcome less than optimal
external factors, these negative external factors nevertheless add stress to the work at
hand, which may cause discomfort, distraction, or fatigue for the interpreters. Thus,
interpreters can only achieve optimum quality if the appropriate external conditions
are provided.
Examples of external conditions as given by Moser-Mercer (1996) include
physical environment (booth dimensions, equipment, air quality, position of booths,
lighting, etc.), complexity of subject matter under discussion, change in subject matter,
adversarial nature of meetings, discourse characteristics (density of text, emotionality,
coherence, etc.), delivery (speaking speed, accents, graphics, presentation, etc.),
preparation of interpreter (documentation), team size, length of turn, load during
working day, number of consecutive meetings, speakers speaking simultaneously,
interpreter’s emotional response, and competence and availability of technician.
These external factors are grouped by Cooper, Davies, and Tung (1982) into the
four general sources of job stress among conference interpreters: (a)
physical/environmental factors, (b) task-related factors, (c) interpersonal factors, and
(d) home/work interface. In the AIIC Workload Study (2002), factors on the
stressfulness of the interpretation process and on interpreters themselves include
psychological parameters (perceptions, attitudes etc.), physical parameters of working
conditions (i.e. air quality, noise insulation, lighting etc. in booths) and physiological
parameters (heart rate, blood pressure etc.). It goes on to classify occupational stress
into environmental (noise, heat, etc.), mental (tasks requiring attention over long
periods of time, decision making etc.), and stressors (interactions with colleagues,
superiors and subordinates etc.).
Table 2.4
External Factors Influencing the Quality of Interpretation
External Factors Examples
Physical/environmental poor ventilation/air quality, lighting, size of booths, acoustics/use and misuse of microphones/background noise, uncomfortable seating, booth equipment,
Task-related tremendous amount of concentration required on the job, inconsideration on the part of the delegates (insufficient documentation provided to the interpreter), discourse characteristics, speech delivery, incompetent speakers, poor organization, frequent travel, evaluation or lack of feedback,
Interpersonal relationship with colleagues, relationship with superior, relationships with delegates
Home/work interface frequent travel, personal/family problems
Source: compiled by this study
Without a doubt, all of the external conditions listed above affect the quality of
interpretation or the performance of the interpreter. Of these conditions, this study will
focus on the physical environment of the conference interpreter, the booth for
simultaneous interpretation.
2.4.1 Physical/Environmental Factors Affecting Quality/Performance in
Interpretation
Various studies have been conducted on the conference interpreter’s working
environment, or booths for simultaneous interpretation. Factors affecting the quality
of the working environment include booth size, visibility, ventilation, lighting,
acoustics, and seating (Cooper et al 1982, Jumpelt 1985, Altman 1990, AIIC
Workload Study 2002). A brief overview of the related literature is as follows.
The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) monitors and
sets guidelines for working conditions of conference interpreters. In the past, these
guidelines were based on the experiences of interpreters. Though sound, they had no
empirical basis, which was brought to AIIC’s attention in the mid-nineties, when the
US Federal Trade Commission demanded hard evidence supporting AIIC’s guidelines.
Thus, the AIIC Workload Study was conducted to examine the job characteristics and
work environment of simultaneous interpreters (Mackintosh). The study of the
physical work conditions focuses mainly on quantifiable factors of environmental
quality, including carbon dioxide levels, oxygen levels, relative humidity, temperature,
air velocity, lighting, ventilation, and noise.
As chairman of the AIIC Technical Committee and Special Advisor on
Standards, R. Walter Jumpelt has been involved in the development of ISO and IEC
standards. In his study (Jumpelt, 1985), he describes the characteristics of
simultaneous interpretation (the processing of information volume, information
density, and information structure), the requirements of simultaneous interpretation
booths (sound insulation, acoustic separation, visibility, and ergonomic design), IEC
standards for conference system (requirements regarding sound equipment within the
booth), and lessons from the past (reasons for which booths have failed to meet
requirements). Jumpelt mentions that there are only a small number of facilities are
wholly in accordance with ISO 2603; the noncompliance is usually not due to a
shortage of funds, but rather due to an ineffective use of those funds. Exemplary
facilities that conform to ISO 2603 are those take into account the importance of
communicative functions from the beginning of the architectural design process.
Based on the findings of two questionnaires, one conducted among EC
interpreters in Brussels and the other addressed to members of the International
Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), Altman (1990) compiled and
compared responses on the interpreters’ perception of factors in effective
communication. Respondents were asked to rate to what extent the ability to bridge
the communication gap is affected by the following factors: familiarity with subject
matter, discussion of a document not made available to the interpreter, clear view of
the speaker, quality of sound transmission, speaker’s speed of delivery, whether the
speaker uses the interpreter’s strongest foreign language, quality of speech, delegates
speaking a language not their own, the interpreter’s state of fatigue, the interpreter’s
state of health, and whether the interpretation is being recorded/broadcast. Of these
factors, only clear view of speaker and quality of sound transmission are considered
physical factors that are affected by booth design. It is not surprising that both groups
rated ‘quality of sound transmission’ highly in terms of affecting the interpreter’s
performance. What is surprising, however, is that the first group considered ‘clear
view of speaker’ to be insignificant, whereas AIIC respondents viewed it as an
essential factor. Although Altman does not give any reason for the Brussels group’s
lack of emphasis on visibility, this study can only speculate that perhaps it is due to a
high frequency of relay interpretation.
Unlike the studies above which focus on factors or characteristics of
simultaneous interpretation and the physical working environment under which it is
conducted, Cooper, Davies, and Tung (1982) identify four general sources of stress
for interpreters. These sources include physical environmental factors, task-related
factors, interpersonal factors, and home/work interface. Poor ventilation, lighting or
lack of it, size of the booths, acoustics/use and misuse of microphones/background
noise, and uncomfortable seating are examples of physical environmental sources of
stress. Based on the results of the interviews, a large-scale survey was conducted, in
which five categories of job stressors were identified: environmental, task-related,
organizational/management, delegate, and personal. In terms of environmental
sources of stress, a majority of conference interpreters responded that ‘poor physical
environment of booth’, ‘no daylight/view from the booth’, and ‘unable to see the face
of the speaker’ were significant sources of stress at work.
Table 2.5
Main Physical/Environmental Factors
Source Main Factors Additional Factors
AIIC Workload Study (2002)
Visibility of speaker and/or audience
Temperature, humidity and air circulation
Ventilation
Gaseous Tests for air quality Lighting
Noise
Altman, Janet (1990) Quality of sound transmission Clear view of speaker
Size of booth Adequate air supply Lighting
Cooper, C.L., Davies, R., and Tung, R.L.
(1982)
Ventilation Lighting Size
Acoustics/ microphones/
background noise Seating
Jumpelt, R.W. (1985) Sound insulation Acoustic Separation Visibility
Ergonomic design
TV monitors and other media
Air conditioning
Source: compiled by this study
In addition to the various studies on the conference interpreter’s working
environment, ISO 2603: 1998 Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation also provides a
list of criteria for booth conditions. Established by the International Organization for
Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) and the Joint Service
Interpretation-Conferences (JSIC) of the European Commission (EU), ISO 2603 was
first issued in 1974, then revised in 1983 and 1998 to lay down “basic specifications
to be considered when initial plans are prepared for building or renovating built-in
booths for simultaneous interpretation in new or existing buildings” (ISO 2603).
The three basic requirements of interpreters’ booths as specified by ISO 2603 are
as follows:
1. acoustic separation between different languages spoken simultaneously,
without mutual interference between languages interpreted or with the speaker
in the hall;
2. efficient two-way communication between the booths and the conference hall;
3. a comfortable working environment enabling interpreters to maintain the
intense effort of concentration required by their work.
Further specifications are provided for structural and design requirements for booths
(siting in relation to the building, siting in relation to the conference hall, doors,
access, size of booths, visibility, windows, acoustics, air conditioning, cable ducts),
booth interior (lighting, colours, working surface and document storage, seating),
facilities for interpreters (toilets, interpreters’ room), sound equipment in the
interpreters’ booths (frequency response, amplitude non-linearity, noise and hum,
cross-talk between channels, level control), interpreters’ control panel/console,
functions of controls (incoming channel selection device, incoming channel
pre-selection device, volume control, tone controls, headphone/headset terminal,
monitor loudspeakers, microphone controls, outgoing channel selection device, call
channel, call-line key, colour code for indicator lights), interpreters’ headphones,
booth microphones, and the use of public address systems in conjunction with
simultaneous interpretation systems. However, due to research limitations and time
restraints, not all will be discussed in this study.
Based on the review of related literature, the main physical/environmental
factors affecting the quality of conference interpreting can be summarized as follows:
z Booth size
z Visibility
z Ventilation
z Lighting
z Acoustics
z Seating
z Working surface
2.5 General Characteristics of Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation
The previous section provided an overview of the literature related to the
physical work environment of interpreters and the various factors involved. This
section will give a more in-depth look at each of the booth factors and how they affect
interpreters.
2.5.1 Booth Size
Virtually all literature on the subject of the physical work environment of
interpreters and their sources of stress (Cooper et al, 1982; Jumpelt, 1985; Altman,
1990; AIIC Workload Study, 2002) cite booth size as a significant influence on the
stress of the interpreter, and consequently the quality of interpretation.
ISO 2603:1998 Booths for Simultaneous Interpretation contains a general
statement regarding the size of booths:
Each booth shall be wide enough to accommodate the required number of
interpreters seated comfortably side by side, each with sufficient table space to
work conveniently on several documents spread alongside each other. The booth
shall be high and deep enough to provide sufficient volume of air to enable
temperature control and draught-free air renewal as well as sufficient space for
the occupants to enter and leave without disturbing one another.
As this regulation is rather vague, ISO 2603 then specifies the minimum dimensions
for a booth for two interpreters: 2.50 meters wide, 2.40 meters deep, and 2.30 meters
high. At least one of the booths must be 3.20 meters wide for conference halls with up
to six booths, in order to accommodate three interpreters. All booths must be at least
3.20 meters wide for conference halls with more than 6 booths.
Generally, the size of the booth is dictated by the need to provide sufficient work
space and air volume for interpreters. The constant jostling of elbows in a booth with
insufficient work space can be a constant distraction to interpreters who need to
maintain a high level of concentration on conference proceedings. Moreover,
ventilation can be a problem when dealing with too small a space (Jumpelt, 1985).
As stated previously, direct and indirect ‘users’ of standards often have different
views and interests. Not surprisingly, Jumpelt (1985) points out that the interests of
conference center operators and conference interpreters often clashed on the issue of
booth size.
Labor-related laws of many nations, such as the UK and Australia, include
stipulations on workplace requirements, although most are vague on the minimum
floor space required for each person.
In the United Kingdom, Regulation 10 of the Workplace (Health and Safety and
Welfare) Regulations 1992 requires that each person shall have "sufficient floor area,
height and unoccupied space." The Approved Code of Practice goes on to explain that
each person should have a total minimum of 11 cubic meters of space unoccupied by
furniture, where the maximum height is 3 meters.
Section 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Australia states that the
employer must provide and maintain for employees a “working environment that is
safe and without risks to health.” “A good rule of thumb for personal space is to
allocate 6.25 square metres per individual workstation, including furniture and fittings,
but excluding passageways and amenities” (NT WorkSafe, 2003).
2.5.2 Visibility
Many communication experts, such as Kendon (1981), Preston (2005), and
Lozano and Tversky (2006), agree that in interpersonal communication, much of the
message is conveyed through nonverbal means, such as “bodily activity, gesture,
facial expression and orientation, posture and spacing, touch and smell, and of those
aspects of utterance that can be considered apart from the referential context of what
is said (Kendon, 1981).” According to Givens (2000), anthropologist and director of
the Center for Nonverbal Studies, “When we speak, our attention is focused on words
rather than body language. But our judgment includes both. The audience is
simultaneously processing both verbal and nonverbal cues.” According to
Taylor-Bouladon (2007), 55% of communication is based on visual cues, with 7%
based on the meaning of words and 38% on intonation.
Speech perception is processed simultaneously in audible and visible channels,
which complement one another “in that one source of information is more informative
when the other source is less so” (Moser-Mercer, 2005). This increases the possibility
of accurately processing the information because different information is carried
along different channels. The importance of multi-channel speech perception is even
more pronounced in a bilingual or multilingual setting, such as an international
conference, because speakers may be using a language other than their mother tongue,
leading to inadequate information perceived purely through audible means. Thus,
listeners and interpreters alike must integrate various information sources in order to
gain successful comprehension (Moser-Mercer, 2005).
Many events take place in a conference setting which are only accessible
through visual means, visual aids being the most obvious example (Jumpelt, 1985).
Büler (1985) differentiates between the following types of visual information
important for conference interpreting: (a) nonvocal signals from the sender (speaker),
(b) nonvocal signals from the listener (delegates), and (c) nonvocal signals in the
context of social interaction.
First, the ability to see a speaker’s facial expressions, hand and finger
movements, direction of gaze, posture, and general appearance allows for an easier
understanding of the spoken message and is generally recognized by interpreters and
laymen. Although often overlooked by architects and designers of conference halls,
the second type of visual information, nonvocal signals from the listeners, is
considered essential by interpreters, especially in smaller working groups (Büler,
1985), as listeners are also speakers and vice versa, making it much more important
for interpreters to rely on nonverbal turntaking cues to anticipate and prepare for a
switching of speakers. Thus, a clear view of the speaker and the conference room is so
important to the work of the conference interpreter, that it is included in the Code of
Professional Ethics. Furthermore, the “Agreement Concerning Conditions of
Employment of Short-term Conference Interpreters” (AIIC-United Nations
Agreement, 2000-2005) between AIIC and organizations of the United Nations
simply states that facilities for meetings should comply with ISO 2603:1983 for
built-in booths, ISO 4043:1981 for portable booths, and IEC 914: 1988 for equipment.
The third type of visual information, nonvocal signals in the context of social
interaction, can be further divided into interaction among conference participants,
between interpreters and delegates, and among interpreters (Büler, 1985). The ability
to view the entire conference hall is important to interpreting, as it provides the
interpreters the opportunity to witness the feedback and interplay between delegates
and speakers, as well as get the feel of the general conference procedure and
conference ritual. Remote interpreters, or interpreters working at somewhere other
than the conference location, though they may or may not be able to see conference
proceedings via visual support, reveal a lack of ability to be immersed in the virtual
environment, demotivation, lack of presence, and fatigue. Even with the help of visual
support, remote interpreting is still far more stressful for interpreters, since they are
not able to choose what they are looking at any given time (Moser-Mercer, 2005). As
Jumpelt (1985) states, “without visual contact with the participants and the
proceedings, it is difficult to identify with the subject of the conference.” Büler’s
study (1982, as cited in Büler, 1985) shows that many interpreters felt it was
important to have two-way visual communication between the interpreter and the
delegates, as to avoid working in a vacuum and facilitate visual feedback. Büler
concludes that without such a two-way visual communication, the “lack of
participation produces demotivation, thus increasing stress and reducing the quality of
performance.” As ISO 2603 includes standards regarding side windows (windows
between booths), it is easy to conclude that visual communication among interpreters
working in different booths is important. Büler (1985) cites the exchange of
information on documents or terminology and to provide the feeling of not being
isolated as two reasons why visibility between booths is considered essential by
interpreters.
Gree’s article (Gree, AIIC website) provides quite a few examples of poor booth
design, most of which have notably failed to provide interpreters with an adequate
view of conference proceeding. One example is the Pierre Baudis Convention Centre
in Toulouse, which houses booths with staggered glass panels, allowing interpreters to
neither read slides nor follow conference proceedings. Another is the Agbar Tower,
designed by acclaimed architect Jean Nouvel, whose booth windows cause so strong a
glare that interpreters work “whilst deeply absorbed in contemplating [their] own
reflection” (Gree, AIIC website).
In summary, nonverbal messages are integral to the communication process.
Interpreters depend on these messages to supplement their understanding of the
spoken message. In addition, visual information also provides cues for interpreters,
allowing them to anticipate and prepare for a switch in topics or speakers. A lack of
visual communication can lead to demotivation, isolation, increase of stress, fatigue,
and lower quality in performance of interpreters.
2.5.3 Ventilation
As stated earlier in the overview of ISO 2603, one of the three requirements that
interpreters’ booths are designed to meet is “a comfortable working environment
enabling interpreters to maintain the intense effort of concentration required by their
work.” Studies conducted on the effects of ventilation on health, comfort, and
productivity in non-industrial indoor environments show a strong association between
ventilation and comfort and health, as indicated by Sick Building Syndrome
symptoms, inflammation, infections, allergy, and short-term sick leave, as well as an
association between ventilation rate and productivity, as indicated by performance of
office work (Wargocki et al, 2002). Sick Building Syndrome consists of a number of
general symptoms, such as lethargy and headaches, mucous membrane symptoms,
such as a blocked or stuffy nose, dryness of the throat, and dry eyes, and skin
symptoms, which are caused by factors within the building, such as ventilation rate,
temperature, and humidity (Burge, 2004). Indeed, a well-ventilated booth is essential
to both the comfort of the interpreter as well as the quality of interpretation. ISO 2603
goes on to give specific standards regarding air quality within the booth:
The air supply should be 100% fresh (i.e. not recycled). The air conditioning
system shall be independent from that of the rest of the building and of the
conference hall. Air renewal shall be seven times per hour and the carbon
dioxide concentration shall not exceed 0.1%. The temperature shall be
controllable between 18 and 22 C by means of an individual regulator in each
booth. Relative humidity shall be between 45% and 65%.
In the United States, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has established and updated ASHRAE Standard
62, providing designers of buildings with a guide to ventilation for acceptable indoor
air quality (IAQ). The 1981 standard’s acceptable carbon dioxide levels were stated as
to be maintained below 1,000 parts per million (ppm), but this was later revised and
eventually dropped in the latest 2004 standard. This recommendation was used not
only to maintain carbon dioxide levels, but also as an indicator of other factors.
Carbon dioxide is an indicator of how well the ventilation system is working, or what
amount of outside air is entering the building. If there is a high concentration of
carbon dioxide, it is likely that there is a buildup of other contaminates that may be
hard to detect, which results in poor indoor air quality.
According to recommendations by the Taiwan Environmental Protection
Administration, carbon dioxide levels should not exceed 1,000 ppm, and temperatures
should be controlled between 15 to 28 degrees Celsius.
High levels of carbon dioxide are also associated with headaches, eye problems,
nasal symptoms, respiratory tract conditions, and general feelings of fatigue (Burge et
al, 1987). The accepted level of 1,000 ppm for carbon dioxide as suggested by ISO
2603, ASHRAE, and Taiwan EPA may still be too high as “studies have shown that a
level of 1000ppm carbon dioxide will reduce the ability to concentrate by about 30
percent” (Myhrvold, Olsen, and Laridsen, 1996).
ISO 2603 stipulates that booth temperature should be controllable between 18
and 22 degrees Celsius. The Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration gives a
recommended range of 15 to 28 degrees Celsius. Burge (2004) finds that, in Northern
Europe, temperatures above 23 degrees Celsius cause increased Sick Building
Syndrome symptoms.
Not only is carbon dioxide levels and temperatures important to indoor air
quality, humidity is critical as well. In terms of humidity, ISO 2603 considers the
optimal range to be from 45% to 65%. ASHRAE standards are somewhat more
relaxed, recommending that “indoor humidities should be maintained between 30 and
70 percent in occupied buildings” (as cited in Burton, 2006). It is usual to hear of
complaints that the air is “too clammy” or “smells funny” when the indoor air is too
humid, from 65 to 70 percent, because this high level of humidity either “requires
lower temperatures and more air movement to achieve comfort” or “supports the
growth of microbiological agents such as bacteria, mold, and fungi” (Burton, 2006).
The effects of poor indoor air quality, as caused by factors such as ventilation,
temperature, and humidity, on the performance of office workers and their symptoms
are well documented. It is reasonable to say that these negative effects have a
significant impact on interpreters and the quality of their work. In one study, some
interpreters noted that “the ventilation was so poor that ‘I’m obliged to walk in and
out of the booth’” (Cooper, 1982). Ventilation is an important factor in booth quality;
however, due to time restraints and the limited scope of this study, a cursory
examination of this subject, rather than a full-scale research, will be conducted.
2.5.4 Acoustics
One of the main requirements laid out in the introduction of ISO 2603 is
“acoustic separation between different languages spoken simultaneously, without
mutual interference between languages interpreted or with the speaker in the hall” and
“efficient two-way communication between the booths and the conference hall.” As
mentioned previously, interpreting is an act that requires a high level of concentration,
and background noises from adjacent booths, the meeting hall, or other parts of the
building are distractions for interpreters, thereby prohibiting interpreters from
producing optimum quality interpretation. In Altman’s study (1990), interpreters
consider the quality of sound transmission to be a most crucial factor in the
interpreter’s ability to bridge the communication gap.
Technical specifications are provided in ISO 2603 with regard to acoustics,
sound-proofing, and sound equipment. However, this study will not go into detail in
this subject due to the limited scope of study.
2.5.5 Lighting
During a conference, interpreters not only have to see the speaker, delegates,
and conference hall in general, but also have to refer to many documents before them,
such as lists of terminology, prepared speeches by the speakers, proceedings of the
conference, and other materials. Therefore, a well-lit booth is essential for producing
optimum quality interpretation.
Cooper (1982) mentions sufficient lighting or lack of it as one of the physical
environmental factors in job stress. Interpreters have commented that lighting which
is too strong can cause excessive strain or sensitivity to the eyes. Likewise, a lack of
lighting makes it difficult for interpreters to refer to their documents or notes. If
lighting installations are poorly designed or placed, visual discomfort can arise,
resulting in red, sore, itchy, and watering eyes; headaches and migraine attacks,
gastrointestinal problems; and aches and pains associated with poor posture. There are
many different aspects of lighting that can cause visual discomfort, such as
insufficient light and glare (Boyce, 2006). Poor lighting, such as too much or too little
light, can strain the eyes and cause discomfort, which in turn makes it difficult to
perform to one’s best ability (CCOHS website). Glare occurs when there is too much
light, either directly from the light source or a reflection, causing the eyes to adjust to
the brightest level of light, thereby making it more difficult to see the details in darker
or duller areas (Boyce, 2006; CCOHS website).
ISO 2603 stipulates many regulations for booth lighting. For one, lighting in the
booth should be independent from those in the conference hall, since hall lighting may
be dimmed for slides or presentations. Booths should have both work lights for
illuminate the working surface, and general lights for which a switch should be
available by the booth door. Light sources should not cause glare, and should be
placed in a way so as to avoid shadows being cast by the working interpreter. In
addition, ISO 2603 requires that both work and general lighting systems be equipped
with dimmer switches located within reach of the interpreter working. This study
speculates that dimmer switches are necessary for interpreters to control the amount
of light they receive so as to avoid too much or too little light.
Although there are many issues to explore in terms of lighting, due to restraints
of time and scope, this study will only touch upon this subject in further research.
2.5.6 Seating
Due to the increase of muskoskeletal problems of office workers due to
inappropriate seating, the importance of sitting posture and design of seats have been
recognized by researchers, designers, and manufacturers (Marmaras and Nathanael,
2006). Sitting is hard work, in terms of ergonomic and occupational health
perspectives. Continuous seating for prolonged periods of time has been shown to
cause discomfort, aching, or even irreversible injuries (Marmaras and Nathanael,
2006), even diseases of the spine (Cranz, 1998). In addition to personal discomfort,
poor seating can cause one to suffer from fatigue, poor performance, and interference
with work (Eastman Kodak Company, 1983).
The increasing awareness of the importance of seating has given rise to a
number of ergonomic requirements, including (a) the seat height should be adjustable,
(b) the seat should be stable, (c) the seat should allow the user to move freely, (d) the
seat should have armrests, and (e) the seat lining material should be water absorbent
(Marmaras and Nathanael, 2006). Eastman Kodak Company (1983) recommends the
use of chairs with casters for seated workplaces without footrests.
For interpreters, uncomfortable seating is one of the physical environmental
factors in sources of stress (Cooper, 1982). Interpreters suffer from discomfort when
chairs do not provide sufficient support, especially when they are required to work for
lengthy periods (Cooper, 1982). The layout of the conference hall and visibility from
the booth may also aggravate posture, as interpreters often need to bend forward to
see the presentation, resulting in unnecessary strain on their necks and backs (Cooper,
1982).
To ensure a comfortable working environment for interpreters, ISO 2603 states
that “for each interpreter and technician, there shall be a comfortable chair with the
following characteristics: five legs, adjustable height, adjustable back-rest, arm-rests,
castors producing no perceptible noise, and upholstery of heat-dissipating material.”
In addition, the standard adds that “independent, movable foot-rests should be
available”
In this section, it is clear that sitting for long periods of time in inappropriate
seating can cause discomfort and poor performance. Thus, it is crucial to provide
interpretation booths with comfortable seating in order to ensure optimal quality
interpreting.
2.5.7 Working Surface
In addition to the above physical/environmental factors, appropriate and
sufficient work surface is also essential to interpreting quality.
Sanders and McCormick (1992) propose the following general ergonomic
recommendations for work surfaces: (a) if at all possible, the work surface height
should be adjustable to fit individual physical dimensions and preferences; (b) the
work surface should be at a level that places the working height at elbow height, with
shoulders at relaxed posture; and (c) the work surface should provide adequate
clearance for a person’s thighs. An ergonomic workplace should improve work
performance by minimizing the physical strain and workload of the working person,
facilitating task execution, ensuring occupational health and safety, and achieving
ease of use of the various workplace environment (Marmaras and Nathanael, 2006).
ISO 2603 describes the working surface for interpretation booths as being
positioned at the front of the booth across the full width, at a height of 0.73m ± 0.01m,
and providing a useable depth clear of equipment and fixtures of 0.45m in relation to
the interpreters’ angle of vision into the hall. The standards for working surface height,
along with those for adjustable seating, ensure the occupational health and safety of
the interpreter, minimizing the strain to their bodies. The positioning of the table and
its depth is to help facilitate the interpreters’ work, allowing them to face towards the
hall while having enough working surface to read documents and perhaps, in these
modern times, use their notebook computers.
2.6 Discrepancy Between Direct and Indirect Users
As mentioned previously in Section 2.2.2, we are all users of standards. However,
users can be differentiated into direct and indirect users. In brief, direct users include
those who read and apply standards; indirect users are those who, while not directly
applying the standards themselves, have a stake in the application of the standard. In
the case of booths for simultaneous interpretation, direct users include conference hall
operators who commission the design of the building, and architects who conduct the
design and construction of the building. Here, indirect users would include
interpreters who occupy the booths while interpreting, the clients who employ their
services, and the audience who rely on the interpretation for effective understanding
and communication.
Obviously, booths for simultaneous interpretation are aimed to be used by
conference interpreters. However, as indirect users of the standard ISO 2603,
interpreters, for the most part, are not directly involved in the establishing of the
standard, nor do they have any input in the designing or building process of a
conference hall/interpretation booth unless consulted. Ideally, the direct users such as
conference hall operators, designers, and architects would design and construct
booths in accordance with ISO 2603, but since the ISO 2603 is an international,
voluntary standard, direct users are under no obligation to adopt them. Therefore, as
Brunsson and Jacobsson (2000) mentions, the direct users (architects, designers,
and/or their clients who commission the construction of a conference hall) must be
convinced that following the standard would be beneficial.
In the case that interpreters’ needs or ISO 2603 standard is not adhered to from
the outset of booth design and construction, it is often the indirect users, such as the
interpreters and the audience dependent upon the interpreters’ output, who pay the
price of nonconformance (PONC), although this price may not be measured in
monetary terms (Dul and de Vries, 2006; Crosby, 1984). A poorly designed booth
means that interpreters must rely much more heavily on their own abilities to make up
for the shortcomings in external conditions, which may cause discomfort, distraction,
and fatigue for interpreters. Although most interpreters are sufficiently skilled to
overcome these negative external factors, any drop in interpretation quality or
performance will be received by the audience, who ultimately rely on the interpreters
for communicative purposes. There are cases in which built-in booths have been later
renovated or modified to comply with ISO 2603 standard, which have been far more
costly for conference hall operators than if the standard had been adhered to in the
first place (Gree, AIIC website).
Standardization is generally expected to improve things: a standard is something
good, and usually the best. One of the possible incentives for following standards is to
join an elite group or organization of adopters, who can claim that their product,
service, idea or process is of high quality. This confers a certain status and identity
which differentiates them from the rest of the field. Since most standards are
voluntary, as was stated previously in the text, this is one of the possible ways in
which standards are made more appealing as to attract more adopters and direct users.
Although not a major focus of this study, the differences between direct and
indirect users of standards for interpretation booths will be explored, developing
possible theories and explanations for the discrepancies between the standard ISO
2603, interpreters’ needs, and current conditions.
2.7 Post Occupancy Evaluation
As this study closely resembles the diagnostic tool and system of post occupancy
evaluation (POE), it is necessary to first examine the definition, process model, and
benefits of this system.
Post occupancy evaluation is based on the idea that the design of spaces can be
improved by asking users about their needs, and the term itself refers to “any activity
that originates out of an interest in learning how a building performs once it is built
and how satisfied building users are with the environment that has been created”
(Federal Facilities Council, 2001). Preiser (1988, p.19, as cited in Presier, 1995) gives
the following definition of POE: “Post-occupancy evaluation is the process of
systematically comparing actual building performance with explicitly stated
performance criteria.” Zimring and Reizenstein (1980) define POE as “examinations
of the effectiveness for human users of occupied design environments.” POE
identifies the attitudes and behaviors of building occupants, assesses how well
buildings match their needs, and suggests ways to improve building design,
performance, and fitness for purpose (Turpin-Brooks & Viccars, 2006; Green & Moss,
1998). In short, POE is concerned with measuring the satisfaction of users with the
built environment.
The methodology of POE is discussed in considerable detail elsewhere (Green &
Moss, 1998; Jaunzens, 2002; Preiser, 1995; Preiser, 2002; Preiser & Schramm, 2002;
Preiser, in Federal Facilities Council, 2001; Turpin-Brooks & Viccars, 2006) and will
be discussed only briefly here. Typically, a POE has three phases: (a) planning, (b)
conducting, and (c) analysis of results and application. The planning phase is
preparatory, and establishes the parameters and purpose of study. The second phase –
conducting – is concerned with the collection of data through interviews,
questionnaires, direct observation of building occupants, and measurement of physical
attributes such as lighting and spatial provision, as well as the analysis of data. The
final application phase presents the results and recommends actions to be taken
(Green & Moss, 1998; Preiser, 1995; Preiser, 2001;).
There are also three types of post occupancy evaluations – indicative;
investigative, and diagnostic. Indicative POEs raise awareness of issues in building
performance by way of a quick walk-through evaluations and interviews with
knowledgeable personnel; investigative POEs utilize interviews, questionnaires, field
studies, and measurements of a number of buildings of the same type to thoroughly
understand the causes and effects of building performance; and diagnostic POEs are
the most time-consuming of the three types, using sophisticated data gathering and
analysis techniques to create new knowledge about aspects of building performance
(Preiser, 1995; Preiser, 2001; Turpin-Brooks & Viccars, 2006).
Post occupancy evaluations provide many benefits to the stakeholders in
buildings, who include investors, owners, operators, designers, contractors,
maintenance personnel, and users or occupants (Federal Facilities Council, 2001).
Jaunzens et al (2002) examines potential benefits to clients, end users, facilities
managers, and project team (designers) from POE studies. The evaluation benchmarks
building performance and suggest ways to improve environmental conditions and
reduce costs for clients. Benefits for end users include ensuring that the working
environment is satisfactory and supportive, and allows them to voice their concerns.
Facilities managers are able to become aware of likely problem areas and prioritize
funding and spatial use because of POE studies, and designers will be able to gain
feedback in order to develop better and smoother design processes in the future
(Jaunzens et al, 2002).
Although this study does not examine entire buildings or conference centers, the
model of post occupancy evaluation can still be applied here in learning how an
interpretation booth performs and how satisfied interpreters are with the built
environment. It is hoped that this process not only benefits interpreters, but also
conference hall operators, conference organizers, designers and architects, conference
speakers and audience members, and the entire conference industry in Taiwan.
2.8 Summary and Research Questions of this Study
This chapter has reviewed many of the characteristics of standards and
standardization. It is clear that, when applied to interpreter’s booths, standards are
used for creating working environments of a certain quality, in order to ensure the
optimum quality of conference interpretation.
As stipulated in ISO 2603 and discussed in various articles, many factors are
involved in ensuring the quality of interpretation booths, such as booth size, visibility,
ventilation, lighting, acoustics, seating, and working surface. Chapter 3 describes this
study’s methods in gathering data regarding existing booth conditions, the needs of
interpreters with regard to booths, and the importance of various booth factors as
determined by interpreters. The methods of post occupancy evaluation provide a
useful guideline in which to assess user satisfaction with the built environment.
Another interesting issue worth investigating is the different interests of various
parties involved in the booth, namely, the standardizers who establish the standards,
the client who commissions the building of the conference center, the architect
responsible for the design, the interpreters who use the booth, and the audience who
receive the interpretation conducted within the booth. However, this issue is not
directly related to the present study, and will only be touched upon.
