Sep 08
13

Video Relay Services VS Text-based Relay Services

7 Comments

A friend of mine while talking to me via IM asked me why I preferred the Video Relay Services over the Text-based Relay Services. She dared to tell me to “elaborate”. She asked for it, so I elaborated. :-)

(The friend of mine is Rachel S. in Rochester, NY- greetings goes out to her! Thanks for providing me with material to finally write in my blog! ;-) )

I thought I’d share my elaboration.

I love using the video relay services because I’m able to communicate in my natural language. The interpreters also are able to convey tones in verbal speech into facial expressions, so I’m able to experience emotional cues. The interpreters also render my facial expressions into verbal tones. The interpreters also can keep pace with my speed of signing, so listeners can tell whether I’m speaking slowly as if I’m tired, or speaking rapidly as if I’m excited, and so forth. That in combination with verbal tones gives an unbeatable two-punch that the text-based relay services simply cannot match.

I also love being able to interrupt the speaker easily, and their ability to interrupt me just as easily. The conversation is smooth and flowing and can change direction fluidly without causing discord in the conversation. Text-based relay services have attempted to achieve this, but always fails and the conversation has an aggravating tendency to lapse into a turn-by-turn conversation harkening back to the times of walkie-talkies ("blah blah, over, yes, blah blah, over, you take care, over and out, cool you too, out"). With text-based relays, both parties have to follow a specific procedure to keep order in the conversation, while with the video relay services you can discard that altogether.

Then there’s the telephone menu systems; with the text-based relay services, you have to wait for them to tell you the entire recording for each menu prompt, then when you tell them the menu choice, they actually hang up, and redial, wait for the  menu choice, then press the corresponding button. For multiple menu levels, this can stretch what normally would have been a short call into eternity. With the video relay services, they listen and translate live with you watching, and you can interrupt anytime to give your choice, and they will press the corresponding button immediately, and continue the call.

Hearing people as a whole also have indicated to me unanimously that they all prefer the VRS to the TRS because it’s also much more faster and natural for them.

Due to the combination of all those factors, it’s clear that VRS is the way to go. ;-)

Posted in Deafness by Don. 7 Comments

7 Responses to "Video Relay Services VS Text-based Relay Services"

  • Richard Roehm says:
    September 14, 2008 at 11:05 am
    Reply

    Remember that there is much work and ambitions to restore the hearing of the deaf individuals in the future. Come next year, stem cell trials for hearing loss will be at the new hearing center where I serve as a PAC member.

    Dont tell us VRS is the way to go for the millions of deaf people and children’s who’s hearing losses will be restored by new technology in the near future.

    Richard

  • Don Cullen says:
    September 14, 2008 at 11:18 am
    Reply

    I’m very much aware of the work/ambitions to restore the hearing of the deaf in the future. I’m also aware of the stem cell trials.

    In fact, I’ll among those who’ll line up to regain their hearing.

    But you’re forgetting something: a “cure” won’t occur for a couple of years. Until then, we need a solution to be able to make phone calls — and text-based relay services, to be blunt, isn’t the best solution for this. The Video Relay Services are.

    Telling people “Don’t use the VRS, you’ll be hearing in 5 years from now! I know you’ll be still deaf for the next 5 years, but never mind that, just think of what it’ll be like in 5 years! Just use the TRS! Never mind that it’s an obsolete solution, it’ll be good enough for you!” is simply inane.

    Allow me to rephrase for your sake: “If you’re either a person who isn’t interested in a cure, or if you’re a person who’s interested in a solution to be able to make phone calls with ease until a effective cure for deafness is found, the Video Relay Services are most clearly the way to go rather than using the obsolete solution of the Text-based Relay Services.”

  • Bill says:
    September 14, 2008 at 4:06 pm
    Reply

    I have never received a text relay call, but I did call myself with an im relay. They spelled things I said incorrectly, and got my email address wrong when I said it.

    I do get a little confused with the VR pauses, as the terp signs out to the other person, because I don’t know when he’s done. Not a big deal, really, just hard to get used to. Does the VP show the terp talking on the phone to the other person?

  • Don says:
    September 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm
    Reply

    Yeah, the VP shows it. And most hearing people I know got used to the relay very quickly, they even went out of their way to tell me they liked it much more than the text-based relay. I acknowledge there’s some flaws in it, but still, VRS is a vast improvement over TRS.

  • the one and only ridor says:
    September 14, 2008 at 6:57 pm
    Reply

    Don:

    You nailed Roehm as fast as can be. Way to go. Basically everything you said is 100% on the target.

    R-

  • Richard Roehm says:
    September 15, 2008 at 9:06 am
    Reply

    Text based calls promote literacy in the deaf communities in the time being, to take text relay options away will send the deaf community on the way back to the 1800′s.

    If youre going to be calling text based relay soon to be obsolete, you’re actually paving way for millions of dollars in loss of funding for literacy programs in deaf schools.

    Therefore the VRS option could be a wonderful gift now that could morph into a travesty later on.

  • Don says:
    September 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm
    Reply

    I never said that the TRS option should be taken away, it should always be an option, especially for people who cannot afford high speed internet, or televisions. It also should remain an option if the high speed internet suddenly becomes inaccessible (due to power outage, etc), and one needs to make an urgent phone call.

    You stated I said: “soon to be obsolete” for TRS; I never said “soon to be”. It’s ALREADY obsolete.

    HOWEVER just because a technology has become obsolete does not mean it should be terminated; an obsolete technology always has its own uses, as I have pointed out earlier in this comment.

    There’s also plenty of other methods to increase one’s literacy, be it reading books/newspapers/magazines, writing comments in other people’s blogs like you’re doing, or blogging, or writing letters, or reading the captions on television, reading internet articles, and so forth. To not partake in ANY of those implies outright laziness. Anyone can improve their literacy if so desired; to not do so is no fault of society or mine — it’s solely the individual’s fault. There’s plenty of resources for someone to increase their level of literacy, the only thing required from them is desire/motivation. One simply cannot help those who do not desire to help themselves.

    I still hold to my stance that the TRS is obsolete, good for only a backup method if no way of using the VRS is available.

    I understand your concerns, but I’d like to point out you’re jumping to conclusions; termination of the TRS would NOT affect literacy programs in the schools for the deaf. Education is always the norm in schools; so literacy programs would always exist. The hearing society does not need the TRS, nor make use of it, and yet literacy programs exist in their schools. I’d like to emphasize that while I’m pointing out termination would not affect literacy programs at deaf schools, I am not calling for termination of the TRS; I’m simply pointing out that the TRS is obsolete and that VRS is a vastly better method to place calls to hearing individuals/facilities.

    Thanks for your input. :-)

Leave a Comment

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 10,339 bad guys.