Accessible digital textbooks in
the mobile learning environment
Stephen R. Acker- OhioLINK/Ohio Board of
Regents
Ken Petri- The Ohio State University
Presented to the
2011 Accessing Higher Ground Conference
Denver, Colorado November 16, 2011
Context and content
• Three learning megatrends
– Explosion of smart phones and mobile computing
– Ascendance of digital books and eTexts
– Growth of mobile learning in higher education
• Making mobile learning accessible
– Design issues
– User issues
– Beyond accessible PDF
Apple (not) computer
Amazon (not) books
• 105 eBooks for every 100 print books sold by
Amazon in April 2011 (both paperback and hard
cover).
– The comparison excludes free eBooks (which would
increase ratio).
– 6% of all books sold in 2010 were digital; 14% of
general nonfiction and fiction were digital.
• New York Times (May 19, 2011)
Education (not) static
• Mobile Learning and eBooks one year from
major impact (2011 Horizon Report)
(Gradual) rise of the digital textbook
• 2011: Digital textbooks are 2.5% of $5.5 Billion annual
market in new textbook sales
– Projected to be 19% by 2014
• On average 53% cheaper than paper
• South Korea investing $2 Billion to move to digital
textbooks
– Equivalent for America?: < $50 Billion
• Proposed legislation part of K12 public schools bill in
Florida mandates all textbooks digital by 2015
- onlineeducation.net (October 2011)
Our E-Book Study
Collaborators
• OhioLINK, Ohio Board of Regents, Columbus
State Community College, The Ohio State
University, Wright State University, Ohio
Rehabilitation Services Commission
• McGraw-Hill, Inkling, Flat World Knowledge,
Stitz & Zeager, AMAC
Technologies
• Readers: Kindle, iBooks, Blio, Read2Go, ReadHear,
Adobe Digital Editions, VitalSource, Inkling, Nook
Study
• Formats: DAISY (+MathML), ePub, PDF, XPS,
Amazon MOBI, proprietary
• Platforms: iPad 2, Netbooks (Lenovo x120e),
Android Tablet, Kindle 3, iPhone, Android Phone,
Nook Color
• iPad and Netbook loaded with other AT and study
and productivity oriented software
Research questions
• Are access and learning opportunities
substantially equivalent for equal effort for
students with print disabilities in all
eReader/digital format pairings?
• What technology, policy, and purchasing
strategies are likely to achieve equivalent
access and support innovation in educational
practices?
User experience data collection
• Students are paid volunteers
– 3 LD (ADHD, degrees of dyslexia), 1 blind
– A major limitation: no students with motor disabilities
• Students are oriented to hardware and software
• Student keep journals describing 40 hours mobile platform
use
– Each student uses 2 platforms for 20 hours each
• Students write a 2- to 3-page Research Process Paper
• Facebook Community serves for data collection and sharing
• Usability specialist collects and analyzes journals and paper
and conducts pre, mid, and post interviews
Facebook sharing/data collection
Orienting participants
Soft/Hardware: PC Netbook
• E-book readers: Adobe Digital Editions (1.8
preview), Blio, Kindle for PC with Accessibility
Plugin, NookStudy, gh ReadHear, VitalSource
Bookshelf
• AT and study tools: Firefox with Diigo add-on,
Balabolka, R & W Gold, JAWS and NVDA,
XMind, MS Suite, Evernote
Soft/Hardware: Kindle 3
• Has TTS with restrictions (set by publisher)
and limitations (of the device)
• Reads menus and book text
Soft/Hardware: iPad 2
• E-book readers: Blio, Google Books, iBooks,
Inkling, Kindle, Read2Go, VitalSource
BookShelf
• AT and Study Tools: Dictionary, Wikipanion,
Flashcardlet, iThoughtsHD, Elements,
Reminders, AudioNote, Evernote, Dragon
Dictation, WritePad, Dropbox, GoodReader
and a ton of “social” and “news” apps,
including OSU Mobile
Soft/Hardware: Should’a had
• Probably should have had CourseSmart
Accessible Web Reader on PC and iPad
• CourseSmart is involved with AccessText and
AMAC through STEPP (STudent E-rent Pilot
Project) in making books readily accessible
through the CourseSmart platform
What we’re discovering
• Disabilities play a role in the perception of the
technology and shape student preferences
What we’re discovering
• Students wondering if problem is theirs or
app’s (“it may be just me…” – very common
question in usability testing, but perhaps more
important with PwD)
• Online help not very useful (or rarely
referenced). Usually just Googled it. Used
Orientation guide infrequently. Desire
What we’re discovering
• Want text to be highlighted as it is read
– Not a surprise to DS folks, but our usability
specialist noted that “split attention” often
interrupts reception
• (Some) want user highlighting with colors,
bookmarking, noting-taking
• Want syncing across platform (progress, notes,
etc.) and between devices (iTunes)
What we’re discovering
• Kindle not very useful
– For a blind participant: “Close to useless”
– Keyboard and note-taking hobble device
– Positive?: Portability
• But size not a huge factor. Outweighed by
utility.
What we’re discovering
• iPad is a device that “integrates with my life”
• Though only one student would buy it with
own money, all suggested DS office should
loan device
What we’re discovering
But iPad not necessarily a silver bullet
• “Myth of Apple” tended to color feedback
– Lots of “it must be me” because device is so “intuitive”
• Favorite device for blind student (but did no in-app note taking)
• Input a problem
– Bluetooth and virtual keyboard a problem for LD students
– Voice recognition (Dragon) works but cumbersome
– Handwriting recognition not usable
• Screen sensitivity a problem for some
• VoiceOver not suited for visual access
– Modal interface a problem
– Too much “interface” read aloud
– Uneven across apps (still the case with iOS 5 “Speak Selection”)
• Even iBooks (simplest non-disability interface) bookmark usage not usable
for blind user and PDF with VoiceOver navigation very limited
Lessons (so far)
Lessons (so far)
• Accidents can happen (see previous slide…)
• Scope of study
– A goal was an “ideal” set up of e-book readers and
apps.
– But short time really requires limited scope:
particular disability and/or particular e-book
readers.
Desired: rich math access
Desired: cross-referencing and
comparison
Desired: synchronized reading +
highlighting
Desired: synced platforms
Desired: Typographic control
Desired: “real” book pages
Desired: rich screen reader access
Textbook replicated
Textbook reinvented
Re-visiting why it matters
Pew Report August, 2011
Social aspects
Raine, November 10, 2011 Sloan-C Conference, Orlando, FL
Questions? Comments?
Contacts
• Steve Acker (acker.1@osu.edu)
– Research Director, Ohio Digital Bookshelf
– OhioLINK/The Ohio Board of Regents
• Ken Petri (petri.1@osu.edu)
– Director, Web Accessibility Center
– The Ohio State University