16 | | |
17 | | --- |
18 | | |
19 | | Documenting the first test: |
20 | | |
21 | | Four users, an interpreter, a monolingual spanish speaker, a monolongual english speaker and a bilingual speaker. |
22 | | |
23 | | The interpreter pressed !#2 and listened to the speakers and interpreted into the other language. |
24 | | |
25 | | Each speaker started by saying their name and the language they were speaking in. |
26 | | |
27 | | The monolingual spanish speaker introduced himself and talked. |
28 | | |
29 | | The interpreter interpreted. |
30 | | |
31 | | The monolingual english speaker pressed !#1 and listened to the interpretation. |
32 | | |
33 | | The bilingual speaker just listened. |
34 | | |
35 | | The bilingual speaker then introduced himself and chose to speak in spanish. Everyone else continued as they were, with the monolingual spanish speaker just listening, while the monolingual english speaker stayed in the interpreter channel (!#1). |
36 | | |
37 | | The monolingual english speaker then introduced himself and his language (english) and something happened that identified a bug. Someone needs to edit this and explain what happened. |
38 | | |
39 | | --- |
40 | | |
41 | | One thought is whether it would be less confusing to have language specific channels. This would only work with a separate interpreter for each language, but have !#1 be for monolingual spanish speakers and !#3 be for monolingual english speakers. The english to spanish interpreter would be in !#2, being heard by the speakers in !#1, and the spanish to english interpreter would be in !#4 being heard by the speakers in !#3. Perhaps there is a configuration setting that can be set depending on whether there is an interpreter for each language. |
42 | | |
43 | | This would eliminate the need for people to be fumbling with their phones, switching channels during the discussion. |