ATN Publisher
Accessibility Focus Group
June 10, 2010
•
•
Ground Rules
Introductions and Background – Invited Participants
–
Please provide some insight on how accessibility has impacted you personally,
professionally, or academically. What action items would you like to see come out
of today’s meeting?
Nathaniel Goldman, Oglethorpe University
LaKeisha Holmes, Georgia State
University
Joe Mielczarek
Karen McCall, Karlen Communications
Dan Himes, DHH Solutions
Susan Kelmer, St Louis Community College
Bonnie Beacher, McGraw-Hill
Chris Kaefer, McGraw-Hill
Larry Marotta, McGraw-Hill
Suzanne Taylor, Pearson
Ann Berlin, Wiley
Frank Grazioli, Wiley
Juanita Thompson, Wiley
Tom Kulesa, Wiley
Ed McCoyd, AAP
Bob Martinengo, ATN
Kane Stanley, ATN
Christopher Lee, ATN
Tamara Rorie, ATN
Susan Roche, ATN
Today Focus Group Direction & Outcomes/Action Items – Christopher Lee
•
Today's meeting stems from: (1) CITF (2) WI Legislative Activities and Needs (3) Ohio
Multiple Perspectives Conference (4) The A-DRM Project Meeting and (5) ATN Advisory
Committee Recommendation
•
Our goals for this group are to share experiences, expertise, resources and solutions
order to achieve equal access for students with print-related disabilities in postsecondary settings.
•
Outcomes/Action Items Includes: ATN Recommendations for Accessible Publishing, which
will be a dynamic document prioritizing issues, highlighting potential solutions,
identifying collaborative partners and archiving progress reports.
– The document will be shared with ATN Advisory Committee and invited guest
experts.
Agenda
•
•
•
Part One
(12:30 pm -1:45 pm)
Break
Part Two – Service Providers (2:00 pm – 3:00 pm)
in
•
•
Break
Part Three (3:15 pm – 4:15 pm)
Part One
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student Voices
AccessText Overview
AccessText Progress Report
AAP/CITF Overview
NIMAS Publisher Experience
Background on Publisher Relations with College DSS
Student Voices
•
•
Nathaniel Goldman, Oglethorpe University
LaKeisha Holmes, Georgia State University
AccessText Mission Statement – Christopher Lee
“The AccessText Network is a membership exchange network that facilitates and supports the
nationwide delivery of alternative files for students with diagnosed print-related
disabilities. AccessText serves as the national nucleus for post-secondary distribution of
approved alternative textbook file exchanges, training, and technical support.”
•
•
•
Publisher Request, Management Tool, and History Data Services
Exchange/Hosting Service
Federated Search
AccessText Progress Report – Kane Stanley
•
Memberships - Beta Memberships
–
–
•
880 Post-Secondary Institutions and 4 Alternate Media Centers serving over 120
schools have registered since August 2009.
120 of these have pre-registered for FY 11 since June 1.
Request Activity
–
Out of 15,640 requests 14,151 have been fulfilled or approved
AAP/CITF Overview – Ed McCoyd
•
•
Alternative Format Solutions Initiative
CITF Work
NIMAS Publisher Experience – Larry Marotta
•
K-12 Perspective
McGraw-Hill Education NIMAS Policy
•
McGraw-Hill is fully compliant with the National Instructional Materials Accessibility
Standard (NIMAS). This law mandates that K-12 publishers provide XML files of all printed
student textbooks and related core materials published as of August 2006. As specified by
the law, NIMAS files are uploaded to the National Instructional Materials Accessibility
Center (NIMAC) for download by authorized state and local education agencies.
(for full text see wiki)
Background on Publisher Relations with College DSS – Bob Martinengo
•
•
Milestones
Recent Developments and Meetings
Before 1990
•
•
•
•
1949 Recording for the Blind founded
1977 AHEAD founded
1988 Computerized Books for the Blind founded
1989 JAWS screen reader introduced
1990s
•
•
•
•
•
1990 ADA is passed
1993 DSSHE Listserv begins
1996 Chafee Amendment passed
1996 DAISY Consortium founded
1999 AB422 passed in California
2000s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2002 ATPC begins operation in California
2002-4 National File Format meetings (K-12)
2004 AHEAD establishes E-Text Solutions Group
2006 NIMAS/NIMAC becomes operational (K-12)
2006 Alternate Formats Solutions Initiative started by AAP
2009 AccessText begins operation
2010 OhioLINK hosts A-DRM meeting
Part Two
•
•
•
•
Alternate Format from a DSS Perspective
Alternate Media Vendor Perspective
Technical Issues and Challenges
Accessibility Advocacy
Alternate Format from a DSS Perspective – Susan Kelmer
•
•
•
•
DSS Responsibility for Providing Alternate Format
Challenges to Providing Alternate Format
Trends in Alternate Format Production – Good and Bad
Future Goals for Alternate Formation Provision
DSS Responsibility for Providing Alternate Format
•
Why do we do it?
– Requirement by law
– It’s our job, not the publisher’s job
– Saying no is never a good idea
•
What our students expect
– Alternate format by the first day of class
– Alternate format that is easy to use, completely accessible, and not missing any
pieces
– Alternate format that comes in several forms, i.e., accessible PDF, MSWord, MP3
– Freedom to use the files in any way they see fit, i.e. putting them on a portable hard
drive or flash drive, uploading to an MP3 player, placing in an online drop-box so
they can access it from any computer that is online.
Challenges to Providing Alternate Format
•
•
•
Unable to see what textbooks are required until just before classes begin
Long response time for some publishers after we ask for alternate text or permission to
scan
The sheer amount of man-hours it takes to produce any textbook in alternate format,
regardless of how we acquired the text/textbook in the first place
Trends in Alternate Format Production – Good and Bad
•
•
•
•
Good – Publishers are being much more responsive in providing electronic files or
permission.
Good – More and more often we are getting files that don’t require as much work as in
the past (accessible PDF’s for one).
Bad – More publishers are making “eBooks” for users, and assuming that “because it’s
electronic, it’s accessible.”
Bad – There are still publishers that think what we want (alternative format for disabled
students) is against the law or at least morally/ethically suspect.
Future Goals for Alternate Formation Provision
•
•
•
Short term:
–
–
File types we want to see
Consistency in publisher responses
Long Term:
–
Publisher files that are already accessible
Opportunities:
–
eBook readers
Alternate Media Vendor Perspective – Dan Himes
Today, the process of creating alternative format textbooks and delivering them to the
students who need them:
A. Has created an artificial market
B. Produces an incomplete and poor quality product
C. Fails to serve the very people it was created to serve
•
And effectively shuts out alternative vendors who could improve the situation for visually
impaired students.
Daniel H. Himes, Owner, DHH Solutions, Phoenix, AZ
Phn: 602-502-9634
e-mail: danhimes@dhhsolutions.net
Website: http://www.dhhsolutions.net
Technical Issues and Challenges – Karen McCall
•
Impact of Section 508 Refresh
Accessibility Advocacy – Joe Mielczarek
•
Empowering Students with Disabilities in Post-Secondary Settings
Part Three
•
Discussion Topics
–
–
Updating the Problem Statement and Coordinating with Other Stakeholders
Proposal to Gather Consumer Data
Updating the Problem Statement and Coordinating with Other Stakeholders
•
•
Clarifying the relationships, obligations, and expectations between students, schools,
publishers, and other stakeholders, such as technology vendors.
Identifying and involving other stakeholder groups and representatives, such as college
bookstores and other distribution channels, hardware and software vendors, and
industry groups such as BISG, SIIA, IDPF, etc.
Accessibility Stakeholders in Post-Secondary Education
•
Students
•
Schools (Faculty, Administration, IT)
•
Publishers (Editorial, Production, Marketing, Support)
•
Authors (Textbooks, Supplements, CoursePacks)
•
Vendors (Hardware, Software, Services)
•
Distributors (Books, Ebooks, Hybrid)
•
Retailers (College stores, Online stores, Rentals)
•
Trade Groups (Publishers, Vendors, etc.)
•
Advocacy Groups (Disability, Education, Human Rights)
•
Standards Groups (Technical, Consumer))
•
•
Professional Societies (Educators, Service Providers)
Government
Discussion Question #1:
With such a variety of stakeholders involved in the post-secondary educational setting (many
of whom are competitors), what is the best strategy for achieving an inclusive and
accessible environment for all students, and how will we know that progress is being
made?
Proposal to Gather Consumer Data
•
Data needs to be collected on how students with disabilities can effectively access their
instructional materials to read, study, write papers, and take exams, and to assess their
readiness, preferences and requirements for acquisition and application of accessible
digital materials.
“… [T]he publishing industry is committed to accessibility, understands the value of good
partnerships, understands the value of a good read to everyone, but that the industry
responds best to data and evidence rather than campaigns.”
Alicia Wise
Publishers Licensing Society [UK]
Publisher Accessibility Newsletter #9
“College Students Prefer Print Over Digital Textbooks”
May 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Even with new digital handheld gadgets, smart phones, pads, and
laptops glued to every college student's hand, 74% still prefer to use a printed textbook
when taking a class, according to the findings of a new Student Watch study conducted
by OnCampus Research, a division of the National Association of College Stores (NACS)
that helps companies better understand the college market. [Read full press release]
The E-Book Sector
Inside Higher-Ed, June 8, 2010 -- E-textbooks might be the most-talked about and least-used
learning tools in traditional higher education. Campus libraries and e-reader
manufacturers are betting on electronic learning materials to overtake traditional
textbooks in the foreseeable future, but very few students at traditional institutions are
currently using e-textbooks, according to recent surveys. Not so in the world of for-profit
online education. Online for-profits such as American Public University System and the
University of Phoenix have for years strategically steered students toward e-textbooks in
an attempt to shave costs and ensure a more reliable delivery ... [Read full article]
“Darden Shares Results of Kindle Experiment”
May 11, 2010 -- Darden’s Kindle experiment is not quite over but the verdict is already in: Most
Darden students prefer not to use the electronic reading devices in the B[usiness]-school
classroom. […] The concern with the electronic reading devices is that they are too rigid
for use in the fast-paced classrooms […] the Kindle is “not flexible enough. … It could be
clunky. You can’t move between pages, documents, charts and graphs simply or easily
enough compared to the paper alternatives.’’
[…]
“What that says to me is that Amazon created a very well-designed consumer device for
purchasing and reading digital books, magazines and newspapers,’’ says Koenig. “It’s not
yet ready for prime time in the highly engaged Darden business school classroom.’’
[Read full report]
Discussion Question #2:
Students with print-related disabilities must engage with technology to read, study, and take
tests on an equal basis with their non-disabled peers. Since non-disabled students have
yet to embrace digital materials in significant numbers, wouldn’t students with
disabilities form the ideal target audience for developing and testing the next generation
of ‘born-digital’ instructional materials and tools?
Thank you!
AccessText Network
www.accesstext.org