Morrison’s Space: A DeafBlind Activist

Dream Team Part III – In‑Person vs. Virtual Access

April 26, 2026

By Morrison

After breaking down how the team interpreting model works in person (Part I) and how it adapts to virtual environments (Part II), it’s worth stepping back to look at the bigger picture. The settings may be different, but the underlying principles remain the same: DeafBlind access requires intentional structure, coordinated teamwork, and interpreters who understand how to manage both the communication and the environment in which that communication takes place.

In‑person access is rooted in physical presence. The Deaf interpreter is on with me through Protactile – tracking the room, the energy, the movement, and the reactions that sighted and hearing people absorb without effort. The hearing interpreter feeds spoken content to the Deaf interpreter, and the additional interpreters rotate in and out to maintain accuracy and prevent fatigue. The environment itself becomes part of the message such as who walks in, who shifts in their seat, who looks confused or engaged, and the Deaf interpreter integrates all of that into the communication I receive from them.

Virtual access shifts the environment but not the need. Instead of tracking a physical room, the Deaf interpreter tracks the virtual one such as who is on screen, who is reacting, how the tone shifts, and what is happening in the “room” that I cannot see. They also take on the responsibility of creating a visually accessible space such as ensuring they have proper lighting, a solid black background, and clothing that supports visibility. When hearing participants are present, Deaf and hearing interpreters work together just as they do in person, each doing what they do best. And when tactile access is needed, the Deaf interpreter works with me in person while watching the virtual platform, ensuring that the flow of information remains intact.

Across both settings, one thing remains true: Deaf interpreters are essential, but not all Deaf interpreters are automatically qualified for DeafBlind Interpreting work. Being Deaf does not inherently mean someone is adept at Protactile, low‑vision adaptations, environmental tracking (also known as environmental feedback), or DeafBlind‑centered communication. DeafBlind interpreting (DBI) requires specialized training, cultural grounding, and a deep understanding of how to translate visual information into tactile or low‑vision modalities. Some Deaf interpreters excel in this work; others do not. The same is true for hearing interpreters. The goal is not to assume competence based on identity, but to ensure that the interpreters present, Deaf and hearing, have the skills, training, and awareness needed to support DeafBlind access effectively.

It’s also important to acknowledge that while virtual platforms may offer features that support low‑vision or close‑vision users, these features do not meet the needs of all DeafBlind people. Some DeafBlind individuals, including myself at times, may require in‑person DeafBlind interpreters even for virtual meetings. DeafBlind interpreters (DBIs) are those who are specifically trained and adept in contact space, tactile communication, Protactile grounding in its philosophy and theory, and the touch-based work required to support DeafBlind participants through touch. There have been times when I needed an in‑person DBI for a virtual meeting, and it made the difference between partial access and full participation. On other days, because I have low vision, I can manage with a virtual Deaf interpreter alone. My needs shift, and my accommodations shift with them.

This is why it is essential to understand that DeafBlind access is never one‑size‑fits‑all. Each DeafBlind person has their own needs, communication modaliities, and access strategies. Some may rely heavily on tactile support; others may use close‑vision or low‑vision modalities; many move between modalities depending on fatigue, lighting, health, or the complexity of the meeting. What works for one DeafBlind person may not work for another, and what works for me one day may not work the next. Flexibility and individualized accommodations are not discretionary; they are the foundation of equitable access.

The biggest misconception is that virtual access is somehow simpler or requires fewer interpreters. In reality, it demands the same level of coordination and, in some cases, even more attention to detail. The visual channel becomes the entire environment, and if that channel is not set up correctly, access breaks down immediately. The team model prevents that by ensuring that every layer – linguistic, environmental, sensory, and relational is accounted for.

What stays the same across both settings is the need for a Deaf interpreter who is actually trained and experienced in DeafBlind modalities, not just ASL interpreting. Their visual intuition, cultural grounding, and ability to adapt information into DeafBlind‑centered modalities cannot be replaced. Hearing interpreters remain essential partners, providing the audio access that Deaf interpreters cannot. Together, they create a structure that allows me to participate fully, without guessing, filling in gaps, or missing critical information.

And, as always, this is not a universal model. Each DeafBlind person has their own communication preferences, sensory profile, and access strategies that work best for them. What I’ve shared across these posts reflects what is most effective for me. My hope is that this series helps people better understand why different structures exist, how they function, and how intentional design leads to the most accurate and equitable communication possible, whether we are sitting in the same room or meeting through a screen.