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 in order to achieve equal access for students with print-related
disabilities in post-secondary 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)
• 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
D. 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 etextbooks, 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 nondisabled 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