The Northern Ireland Assembly is currently progressing with the Committee Stage of the Sign Language Bill (Northern Ireland) 2025. Technology has been positioned as one potential solution to communication barriers for deaf and hard of hearing people. Video relay services, AI-powered translation tools, and remote interpreting platforms are increasingly used across public services. To aid Member’s scrutiny, this blog article summarises what problems these technologies are intended to solve, their limitations, and the broader implications for accessibility.
What technology is supposed to solve
When considering technology solutions to sign language interpretation, the communication ‘problem’ is often described as a lack of immediate access to communication with public service staff for translation between British or Irish sign language, and spoken or written English. From this perspective, technology, particularly AI and video platforms, is treated as a potential solution, while human interpreters may be seen as resource-intensive, over-subscribed, and scarce.
Examples of technology-led solutions include:
- SignVideo used by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other public bodies for video relay interpreting.
- SignLive used by Northern Ireland Housing Executive for video relay services.
- InterpretersLive used by a range of public services, including those managed by the Department for Communities such as Access to Work.
Assumptions underlying technology solutions
A ‘technology as solution’ focus carries several assumptions:
- Technology can substitute human interactions: AI and video platforms may be assumed sufficient, despite the British Deaf Association’s warning that AI cannot replace human interpreters for nuanced, culturally sensitive communication.
- Access is uniform: It may be assumed that all users have compatible devices, reliable internet and digital literacy. Yet in Northern Ireland, Ofcom suggests 5% of households lack sufficient broadband, limiting accessibility.
- Fragmentation is acceptable: Different public services have contracts with different providers, requiring users to manage multiple apps. By contrast, Scotland uses a centralised approach, with its own benefits and challenges, as outlined in the table below.
| Feature | Northern Ireland (Multiple systems) | Potential Issues NI | Scotland (Unified System) | Potential Issues Scotland |
| Platform Structure | Multiple apps per council/service | Fragmentation; users must manage multiple platforms | Single unified platform for all public services | Centralisation may reduce local flexibility; limited local customisation |
| Number of Apps Required by Users | Multiple apps depending on service | Confusing for users; higher learning curve | One platform for all public services and non-profit organisations | Users have less choice; may prefer different interfaces or features |
| Consistency of User Experience | Varies between councils/services | Inconsistent quality; uneven interpretation standards | Consistent across services | Uniformity may ignore regional sign language variations or dialects |
| Integration of AI Tools | Inconsistent; some services piloting AI | Some users may get human interpreters, others AI; inconsistent quality | Coordinated AI and human interpreter integration | Standardisation may prioritise efficiency over nuanced interpretation |
| Accessibility for Rural or Low-Income Users | Limited by broadband/digital poverty; multiple apps increase burden | Digital exclusion; rural users disadvantaged | Single platform reduces fragmentation | Digital poverty still affects rural areas; reliance on single system increases risk of outages |
| Cultural and Linguistic Sensitivity | Varies by platform; inconsistent interpretation quality | Risk of misinterpretation; inconsistent training | Standard protocols and training | May struggle to accommodate all cultural/linguistic nuances |
| Resilience | Multiple independent systems | System failures affect only some users; redundancy exists | One system | Outages affect all users; reliance on single infrastructure |
| Community Involvement / Co-design | Limited; some consultation | Risk that tech does not meet real needs | Centralised but involves user input | Centralised design may overlook local preferences |
Table 1: Comparing sign language technology provision in Northern Ireland’s public sector with Scotland
Implications of technology-led assumptions
While technology has opened up new possibilities for sign language users, it also brings complex challenges. Deaf people often find themselves responsible for navigating different digital platforms just to access basic services. This places a burden on individuals rather than systems and may risk inconsistent service quality, depending on which option a user chooses. This tech-led approach can deepen existing inequalities, especially for those in areas with limited access to devices or low digital literacy, who risk being left behind entirely. Moreover, the growing emphasis on AI-driven solutions may inadvertently devalue the role of skilled human interpreters, potentially compromising the confidentiality, quality, and nuance of communication that a trained professional can provide. While this blog article has focused on the implications of technology-led assumptions for the provision of public services, many deaf campaigners call for private sector employers and businesses to consider accessibility for sign language users in their compliance with equality laws in Northern Ireland.
Challenges of technology for deaf sign language users
Several examples highlight the risks and limitations of technology for sign language users:
- Sign language gloves tried to translate hand gestures into speech but ignored facial expressions and non-manual markers, leading to community rejection.
- AI translation errors have produced misinterpretations and culturally insensitive outputs, underscoring the necessity of human oversight.
- MotionSavvy’s Uni device recognised 300-15,000 words, did not capture facial expressions, and was expensive, and the company closed in 2023.
- Fragmented service provision in NI: Unlike Scotland’s central video relay platform, Northern Ireland’s multiple apps increase the burden on users and complicate access.
- AI or automated translation platforms may be technically capable of conveying information, but they cannot adequately manage sensitive or emotional content. For example, a system delivering medical information such as a cancer diagnosis could lack the empathy, nuance, and cultural sensitivity that a trained human interpreter provides, potentially causing distress or misunderstanding.
Other implications of focusing on technological solutions may include structural barriers as technology alone does not address inconsistent service provision across public services. Also, deaf community involvement such as co-design with deaf users has been limited, potentially undermining the cultural and linguistic appropriateness of AI tools. This is in opposition to the purpose of the Sign Language (Northern Ireland) 2025 Bill. And a focus on technological solutions; face-to-face support, training for staff and standardisation of interpreter availability may remain underemphasised.
Considerations for scrutiny of technology solutions
When scrutinising the potential of technology solutions for deaf sign language users, Members may wish to consider:
- Equality of access, addressing digital inclusion and rural connectivity.
- Maintaining human oversight alongside AI tools.
- Cultural and linguistic sensitivity in AI-supported translation.
- Trade-offs between fragmented and unified systems.
- Community involvement in technology design, implementation, and evaluation.