I have recently returned from the
AHEAD 2007 conference and rather than confront the backlog of messages, student files, eMails, and other flotsam awash upon my workspace I shall instead attempt to make sense of my notes from the conference and update my readers on the doings of the AHEAD E-Text Solutions Group. Caution - these notes are incomplete and are fullest where my interests were perked. The
E-Text Solutions Group website has been updated with much good information and
its membership is available to answer questions and such.
I also recommend taking a look at the independent website
AltFormat.com.
There were two meetings of the group during the conference. The first was a semi-informal Q&A session on Thursday evening. Led by
Chairman Ron Stewart, this public forum was designed to be an
"informative discussion to learn about the continuing work of AHEAD to foster the availability of e-texts for all college students." The second meeting took place the following morning and was a more formal "informative session on current activities" designed to provide "up-to-date developments in the provision of educational materials in accessible formats". Both were very well attended and the following notes are a combination culled from both meetings.
Rick Bowes, representing the AAP (
Association of American Publishers) and the AFSI (
Alternate Format Solutions Initiative), provided an update on the cooperative agreement that is being developed between the major educational publishers in partnership with the AHEAD E-Text Solutions Group. The slides from Rick's presentation in both PowerPoint and Outline Format are available on the
E-Text Solutions Group webpage. Much good information is also available on the
AAP Higher Education Accessibility webpage.
Rick updated the audience to a degree but could not say much beyond what he
reported at the CSUN conference earlier in the year. This is actually good news in that the publishers are taking his work seriously and moving forward. Bad news he could have shared - good news needs to be kept under wraps for the time being as the publishers discuss, deliberate and design their next moves.
Rick did go into a brief overview of
NIMAS /
NIMAC for those who were unfamiliar with them and noted that as worthy as this legislation is, the implementation has not been without problems. While NIMAS is being sorted out, Higher Education must not allow itself to become complacent to the idea that there will soon be similar laws for us and we must learn from mistakes made in the implementation of NIMAS and not make the same. NIMAS has had a slow-go since the green light of December 3, 2006 and as of mid-July 2007 there are less than 400 textbook file sets in the NIMAC repository with a total library of approx. 1,100 file sets - the majority being supplemental materials. This is out of a potential inventory of a quarter of a million titles.
Rick pointed out that a
NIMAS File Set is not simply a single document and it has become apparent to both the NIMAC and the publishers that there is as much interest in the supplemental materials associated with the textbooks as there is with the textbooks themselves. This has tempered the publishers enthusiasm a bit as they try to figure out how to provide materials that are not necessarily specified under the law but which are none-the-less integral to the academic mission.
As for output, so far there have less than 300 downloads by the educational systems of nine (9) states. Much of this has to do with the need for individual states to decide how they are going to confront NIMAS and incorporate it into their state education statutes. In essence, many Attorney Generals and Departments of Education around the country are stymied and until they figure out what to do and move forward there could be a log-jam effect that has a negative on both postsecondary operations and efforts.
For example, Texas recently dodged a bullet when legislation was introduced that would have directed publishers to only provide digital materials in
ASCii format. A knee-jerk reaction would be to question the technical know how of the Texas legislation [
a'la the grand Senator from Alaska], but a closer look reveals that this is perhaps simply lazy continuation of previous
Braille legislation (circa 2001) that calls for
"ASCII, ICADD 22 or SGML for Windows or DOS, or agreed format produced upon 3.5" DDHD diskette, 5.25" Syquest, or other agreed on media." Unfortunately lawmakers in Texas
are not alone in their inability to keep up with evolving technology. Fortunately the right lobby intervened and the wording was changed to something more user-friendly and appropriate.
The Texas side-swipe points out a general misunderstanding in both publishing and legislation that a mandatory one-size-fits-all solution is perfectly applicable and acceptable. As Rick noted throughout both sessions, the publishers want to do what is right, but simply do not know how. Actually, it is not proper to white-wash the publishers - perhaps some numbers will clarify. According to Rick, in terms of books used in education, there are some 4,600 publishing organizations in the United States producing in excess of 250,000 titles annually. These are not always 'publishers' per se and the majority are small, independent, affiliated with professional organizations or university presses and more than 50% are non-profit entities. As one of the panelist pointed out - there is no "they" when referring to publishers.
In fact, the
AAP Higher Education group includes a half-dozen of the most prominent textbook publishers who produce 70% to 80% of the textbooks in use today. These publishers 'get it' in terms of what they should do and must do both morally and under the law. Unfortunately, until the dust settles on NIMAS and similar efforts take hold for Higher Education their hands and efforts are tied. The big publishers have a bottom line to look out for and cannot risk moving in a direction that may turn into an unprofitable dead-end. The small publishers are in worse straits as many of them
run in the red and simply do not have the resources or know-how to create accessible formats. Akin to the
AHEAD E-Text Institute trainings for the 3,500+ colleges and universities in the U.S., Ron Stewart notes that there should be similar trainings for the 4,600+ organizations that publish.
One point that kept coming across through both sessions was the need for flexibility in formats. This cannot be a one-size-fits-all proposition as that will not work for any of the participants (publishers, educators, and especially students). The key to NIMAS is supposed to be its flexibility in that the source files are supposed to be able to be easily converted to a variety of outputs (DAISY, Braille, variable print, etc.) but creating the source files that go into the NIMAC seem to be causing a bit of a headache for those that publish.
Time in both sessions was devoted to the rights and permissions process as regards converting textbooks in alternate formats. Though worthy of attention, the
Publishers Look-Up Service sponsored by the AAP is only an interim step and only contains information on less than a quarter of publishing entities. Also throughout both meetings there was information and discussion on a variety of topics, including activities of the E-Text Solution Group, basics of NIMAS/NIMAC, current and pending legal cases and
OCR letters,
international interests,
lessons from K-12 and more. Unfortunately my notetaking skills ain't what they used to be and I was unable to keep up with the conversation. Perhaps in the future these sessions can be recorded for pod/vodcasting. Anyway - check the
PPT/RTF of Rick's presentation as it has a lot of good information.
Other items Rick presented include the AFSI vision of a national portal for digital formats of materials - akin to a NIMAC for higher ed, improving and streamlining rights and permissions procedures under copyright, file sharing beyond immediate state systems and created a system for trusted transactions (example
Froogle) along with a
federated search to improve the process of locating materials, creating a virtual repository allowing publishers and others to physically control their content, directed and secure distribution points and more. All of this is covered in his slides.
The meat of the meetings - and what most people came to hear - was Rick's report on the AFSI initiative. As he put it, he could not divulge too much but at present the publishers involved are "gnawing on the report" that was present in May of this year. On the Tuesday of the conference (July 17) the AAP voted to move from a research phase to developing a plan of action. According to Rick - the Executive Committee has tasked a select subcommittee to determine how publishers working with AHEAD and its members may better serve the needs of students with print disabilities. Over the next 120 days specific action plans will be formulated alongside evaluation process and financial requirements.
Yes -- money is an issue and needs to be openly acknowledged. As anyone who has developed an E-Text production facility can attest it takes money to put the technology, people and processes into place. Extend this to a for-profit corporate entity putting out a lot of product and needing to show a profit - or for that matter a non-profit that operates in the red and daily fights for its very existence - and you get an idea of one reason why things are perhaps not moving along as swiftly as we seem to think they should. As regards the idea of a centralized entity, there will be costs associated with the development as well as the maintenance at least to a point where it can maintain self sustainability (if ever).
I know there is a lot of information here and admit is is a bit jumbled and incomplete. If anyone else out there has notes from the meetings and would like to share their take on the things please drop me a line. I would be remiss if i did not thank Rick, Ron and all the members of the AHEAD E-Text Solutions group for all of their efforts and communication.
Labels: behind-the-scenes, E-text, higher-ed, publishers
