E-Text Research Project Recommendations Presented to the CSU Advisory Committee for Services to Students with Disabilities April 11, 2003

Background  E-Text Website Research Project –Feasibility of establishing a secure website to archive and distribute electronic text files across the CSU.  Three Phases –Phase One: conduct a system-wide needs assessment. Who is providing e-Text How are they producing it –Phase Two: Best Practices and Standards –Phase Three: Feasibility of using web-based technologies to share across the CSU Research best practices Determine existing models.

Fact Creating an electronic text by scanning is extremely time consuming  1. pages are scanned and recorded as an image file  2. image is digitized through the Optical Character Recognition software (OCR)  3.the digital file must be edited and proofed for accuracy

Editing Time Is the Big Factor in Production Cost Variation  Average cost per book –Low: $363 –High: $1171  Editing time dependent on the clarity of the scanned image, the format,and the complexity of the page (e.g. table, pullouts on margin), & type of book (novel vs. math), & final output (e-text vs. Braille) : –30 seconds to 5 minutes per page of straight text –7 to 15 minutes per page to edit pages having pullouts in margins –15 minutes to 30 minutes per page for pages with tables

Duplication of Efforts Each campus scanning its own textbooks independently wastes human resources Three campuses each scanned and edited the the same textbook (DSM IV) this academic year.

AB 422 largely ineffective No standard proposed No timeline for filling e-text request No reporting and accountability California law vs. Kentucky law

Three Tiered Solution based on current realities  Immediate – implementation in 1-12 months  Create the environment for sharing e-text  Create index database of titles  Establish reciprocal agreement with California community college Mid Term – in 1-3 years  Sharing via Bookshare.org  Sharing via CSU centralized web repository  Long Term – in 7-10 years  National Solution  National File Format

Immediate: 1-2 months Create the environment for sharing e-text  Adopt e-text production guidelines  Adopt best practices related to security and copyright issues  Obtain legal counsel input  Create process for sharing e-texts  Obtain agreement from campuses to adhere to guidelines & processes  Communication & dissemination of guidelines and processes

Immediate: 2-6 months Create index database of titles Estimated Cost 1st Year : $6,050 - $9,050 Software: $800 Staffing: $1500 to develop (100hrs * $15/hr Temp Help) Staffing : $3750 to maintain (5hrs/wk*$15/hr Temp Help) Hardware: 0 (embedded in current production environment server) to $3000 (buy own server/office environment) Estimated Cost 2nd Year: $3750 Staffing : $3750 to maintain (5hrs/wk*$15/hr Temp Help) Possible funding source: Tiger Grant

Immediate: 6-12 months Reciprocal agreements  Establish reciprocal agreement with California community college (AMX and ATPC) so that campuses in one system can access the database of the other system without individual registration - Preliminary conversations with High Tech Center, AMX database

Mid Term A: 6 months -1 year Sharing via Bookshare.org Bookshare.org  e-text repository operating under Chafee Amendment  national reach  digital rights management & security issues worked out  fast way to ensure e-texts are shared  individual subscription which can be paid for by student, DoR, institution  In near future will have institution membership based on # of books pulled down  Model akin to RFB & D for audio books

Mid Term B: 2 to 3 year Sharing via centralized CSU repository Requirements:  Functional expertise on storage, archiving, retrieval of texts (librarians)  Technical expertise (IT staff)  User expertise (DSS staff)  Plan for digital rights management, security, copyright infringement, best practices

Mid Term B: 2 to 3 years Sharing via centralized CSU repository Options:  Alignment with existing efforts (CSU Net Library etc.)  Bookshare.org partnership  Create our own

Long Term: 7-10 years National Solution Instructional Materials Accessibility Act (IMAA) USA legislation that Calls for the identification of a  National File Format (NFF)  Would establish a national repository for files  Authorized agencies would have access to the files  Once passed, will require participation by publishers within three years  Legislation designed for the K-12 arena  Originally introduced in 2002, but stalled in Congress Reintroduced again in 2003 in the House and Senate

National File Format  Office Of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Calls for an NFF  Recognition that a NFF is absolutely needed  OSEP awards grant for committee to identify the NFF  CAST receives grant and builds committee  On March 11, 2003, the ANSI/NISO Z (DAISY 3) XML tag set (DTBook) was selected  Final Recommendations due in September 2003  Regardless of what happens to the IMAA, a NFF is needed in K-12 and Higher Education

DAISY Standard DAISY Is a Comprehensive Solution  Created using universal design Principles  Based on existing multimedia standards  Supports Braille as an output format  Supports rich, scalable graphical visual presentation  Audio synchronization with images and text  Flexible and extensible with modular design  Powerful navigation system  Textbook support, including representation of print  book pagination

Focus on DTBook, the XML Tag Set as the NFF Defines an XML vocabulary (tag set)  Structural tags  blocktext tags  Images, with "alt" text and longer descriptions  Table tags, which include cell, rows, columns, etc.  Inline tags for more granular item identification  Essential textbook tags: sidebars, notices, footnotes, annotations  Producer-added explanations  Mechanism for adding subject-specific modules

Strategies to bring the future forward  Pushing for the national file format with publishers  Build critical mass at the national level through AHEAD  Partner with community and advocacy groups  Work on National legislation to include postsecondary education in the IMAA Goal – universal design transparent accommodations, elegant & embedded solutions For the good of all.

Action now  Motion 1: To authorize the e-text research team to implement the creation of a CSU index database of e-text titles making use of existing resources whenever possible.  Motion 2: To adopt the proposed CSU E-Text Production Guidelines with the understanding that it will be a living document subject to revision should technology or circumstances change.  Motion 3: To authorize the e-text research team to develop guidelines for a CSU e-text web repository..

Update of Recommendations from November 22, 2002 Meeting  The CO DSS program staff would explore leveraging CSU buying power to drive down prices of assistive technology (hardware and software), scanners, RFB & D membership. System-wide survey of current and projected AT use. See Excel Report.  The Advisory Committee would request advice from the Office of General Counsel regarding potential liability issues when sharing e-text that are generated from publisher files Sent list of questions to General Counsel representative, Steve Rascovich, who will be here to report.  The CO DSS program staff in collaboration with the DSS directors would present to faculty senates information regarding practices that are accessibility-friendly. Draft developed by Ralph McFarland being reviewed by Les Pincu.

Update on prior recommendations con’t  The CO DSS program staff would begin to engage in a dialogue with the Council of Library Directors regarding the integration of accessibility requirements and library functional responsibilities. Draft of letter to Council of Library Directors for review.  The Advisory Committee would request from the CSU campus bookstores a vendor list of publishers ranked by volumes purchased and by dollar spent. Strategy with bookstores led by Paul Miller.  The Advisory Committee would request a seat at the Academic Technology Strategy planning table. Requested but not granted. However, several directors did have opportunity to dialogue with visiting team. See Talking Points.

E-Text Team Members E-Text Research Team Mary Cheng, CSU Hayward Anne Judd, CSU Hayward Penny Peterson, CSU Long Beach Jeff Senge, CSU Fullerton Jeniffer Wellington, CSU Hayward E-Text Standards Committee Cindy Marota, San Jose State Eric Christierson, San Jose State Mark Turner, CSU Pomona Jeff Senge, CSU Fullerton Anne Judd, CSU Hayward Chancellor’s Office Consultant John Karras