Morrison’s Space: A DeafBlind Activist

Dream Team Part II – Virtual Access

April 26, 2026

By Morrison

Just as in‑person environments require a coordinated team interpreting model, the same is true when everything shifts online. The format may change, but the access needs do not. Virtual spaces still carry layers of information that sighted and hearing people can take in without effort such as who is speaking, who is reacting, how the energy shifts, what is happening in the “room,” and how the conversation moves. For DeafBlind people, those audio and visual cues don’t come through a screen just like it does for those who are not DeafBlind. They have to be intentionally built into the access structure, and that is where the team model remains essential.

A Deaf interpreter trained to work with DeafBlind individuals who use low‑vision or close‑vision modalities plays a central role in virtual settings. They understand how to prepare their visual space so that the channel is actually usable: a solid black background, a black top/shirt, and lighting that is even, bright, and free of glare. This is not cosmetic, it is functional access. It is also especially important for BIPOC interpreters, whose visibility is often compromised when lighting is poor or backgrounds are not contrasting, yet most can and are encouraged to use a black background as it will still work just as well. Deaf interpreters know how to create a visual environment that supports clarity, reduces (eye) strain, and keeps the communication consistent throughout the meeting.

Even in virtual meetings, Deaf interpreters continue to provide environmental information just as they would in person. They track who is speaking, who is responding, how the tone shifts, and what is happening in the virtual “room” that I cannot see. They integrate those cues into the communication they provide to me, ensuring that I am not only receiving the linguistic content but also the context that gives that content meaning. For a deaf‑sighted participant, these cues often come through naturally in ASL – facial expressions that show the affect, and tone are visible. But for a DeafBlind participant, those cues do not “naturally” come through, even if some vision is present – they cannot catch these facial expressions via ASL. 

This is where the distinction between ASL interpreting and DeafBlind interpreting becomes important. DeafBlind Interpreting are where Deaf interpreters are not simply taking on the role of an ASL interpreter. Their work is grounded in Protactile theory, philosophy, and DeafBlind communication practices, which prioritize environmental awareness, relational information, and sensory grounding. When a hearing interpreter signs the spoken message, the Deaf interpreter does not just “repeat” it, copy-sign. No. Instead, they translate this into a modality aligned with DeafBlind access – close‑vision, low‑vision, or if in person – Protactile, and add the environmental and affective information that would otherwise be lost. For example, if a speaker’s tone is warm, sarcastic, tense, or flat, the Deaf interpreter conveys that through tactile or low‑vision cues: a smile to show warmth, a neutral expression to show monotone delivery, or a shift in contact to show a change in energy. These cues are part of ASL visually, but they are not accessible to a DeafBlind person without intentional adaptation.

Deaf interpreters bring this additional layer because they are visual communicators by nature and by culture, and they understand how to translate visual information into tactile or low‑vision modalities. Their role is not to mirror the ASL parameters of the hearing interpreter, but to transform the message into a DeafBlind‑centered modality that preserves meaning, tone, and environmental context. This is what keeps DeafBlind participants connected not only to the words being said, but to the full environment in which those words are happening.

When hearing participants are present, Deaf interpreters team with hearing interpreters to ensure the spoken content is accurately conveyed. The Deaf interpreter watches the hearing interpreter’s ASL and translates this into a modality that aligns with how DeafBlind people receive information through Protactile theory and philosophy either close‑vision, low‑vision, or if in person – through touch via Protactile. This is something Deaf interpreters do instinctively because, again, they are visual communicators by nature and by culture. Just as hearing interpreters can listen to spoken language and translate it into ASL with ease as it is in their nature to “listen” to sound based information, Deaf interpreters can take that ASL and transform that into a form that is accessible for DeafBlind participants. It is a parallel skill grounded in lived experience.

Hearing interpreters, by contrast, are trained to listen and translate spoken English into visual ASL. What they are not typically trained to do is manage all three layers at once: listening to the spoken message, translating it into ASL, and providing the visual and environmental cues that a DeafBlind person needs. There are very few hearing interpreters who can do this well, but it is rare. Most cannot sustain that level of multitasking without losing accuracy or dropping essential information, keeping up with the flow and pace of the conversation that’s happening. This is exactly why Deaf interpreters are needed, to support that flow and pace of information and ensure that nothing is missed.

If tactile access is required during a virtual meeting, the setup shifts but the team model remains the same. In these cases, the Deaf interpreter works with me in person, off camera. The camera focuses only on me, while the on‑site Deaf interpreter watches the hearing interpreter on screen – the virtual platform. This setup is necessary when hearing participants are present and hearing interpreters are needed to provide access to spoken content. If the meeting includes only Deaf participants, then Deaf interpreters can handle the full communication without a hearing interpreter. Regardless of the configuration, the Deaf interpreter continues to provide Protactile and environmental information through touch such as what is happening in the virtual room, who is engaging, how the conversation is moving – just as they would in an in‑person setting.

It’s also important to be clear that this virtual approach is not a substitute for what should be happening in medical or legal settings. The virtual model I’m describing is appropriate for non‑life‑threatening situations such as classes, meetings, webinars, presentations, and other environments where the pace and stakes allow for a structured virtual setup. This is not the same as Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), and it should not be treated as such. VRI in medical environments is unsafe and inaccessible for DeafBlind patients because VRIs cannot provide the environmental, relational, or tactile information required for accurate communication. In medical facilities – especially emergency rooms, urgent care, or any situation involving health decisions. The only appropriate accommodation for DeafBlind patients is an in‑person interpreting team. Virtual access may work in everyday contexts, but it does not replace the need for qualified, in‑person interpreters in clinical or legal settings where safety, accuracy, and full sensory access are essential.

Virtual access is not simpler or less demanding. It requires the same level of coordination, the same attention to detail, and the same commitment to accuracy and environmental awareness. Whether the meeting is in person or online, the goal is the same: full, equitable participation without gaps, omissions, or barriers. And as always, this approach is not universal. Each DeafBlind person has their own communication needs, and access strategies that work best for them. What I’ve described here reflects what is most effective for me, and for some others but not all. My hope is that this helps people better understand how different structures are intentionally designed to support the most accurate and effective communication possible.