ATN Publisher Accessibility Focus Group June 10, 2010

1. ATN Publisher Accessibility Focus Group June 10, 2010

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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)

5. Part One • Student Voices • AccessText Overview • AccessText Progress Report • AAP/CITF Overview • NIMAS Publisher Experience • Background on Publisher Relations with College DSS

6. Student Voices • Nathaniel Goldman, Oglethorpe University • LaKeisha Holmes, Georgia State University

7. 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

8. 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

10. AAP/CITF Overview – Ed McCoyd • Alternative Format Solutions Initiative • CITF Work

11. NIMAS Publisher Experience – Larry Marotta • K-12 Perspective

12. 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)

13. Background on Publisher Relations with College DSS – Bob Martinengo • Milestones • Recent Developments and Meetings

14. Before 1990 • 1949 Recording for the Blind founded • 1977 AHEAD founded • 1988 Computerized Books for the Blind founded • 1989 JAWS screen reader introduced

15. 1990s • 1990 ADA is passed • 1993 DSSHE Listserv begins • 1996 Chafee Amendment passed • 1996 DAISY Consortium founded • 1999 AB422 passed in California

16. 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

17. Part Two • Alternate Format from a DSS Perspective • Alternate Media Vendor Perspective • Technical Issues and Challenges • Accessibility Advocacy

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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

24. Technical Issues and Challenges – Karen McCall • Impact of Section 508 Refresh

25. Accessibility Advocacy – Joe Mielczarek • Empowering Students with Disabilities in Post-Secondary Settings

26. Part Three • Discussion Topics • Updating the Problem Statement and Coordinating with Other Stakeholders • Proposal to Gather Consumer Data

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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?

30. 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.

31. “… [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

32. “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]

33. “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]

34. 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?

35. Thank you! AccessText Network www.accesstext.org