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 guidelinesAdopt best practices related to security and

copyright issuesObtain legal counsel inputCreate process for sharing e-textsObtain agreement from campuses to adhere

to guidelines & processesCommunication & dissemination of

guidelines and processes

Immediate: 2-6 months Create index database of titles

Estimated Cost 1st Year : $6,050 - $9,050Software: $800Staffing: $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 yearSharing 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 yearSharing 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 yearsSharing via centralized CSU repository

Options:Alignment with existing efforts (CSU Net

Library etc.)Bookshare.org partnershipCreate 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 Z39.86-2

(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 designtransparent 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 filesSent 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 TeamMary Cheng, CSU HaywardAnne Judd, CSU Hayward

Penny Peterson, CSU Long BeachJeff Senge, CSU Fullerton

Jeniffer Wellington, CSU Hayward

E-Text Standards CommitteeCindy Marota, San Jose State

Eric Christierson, San Jose StateMark Turner, CSU PomonaJeff Senge, CSU FullertonAnne Judd, CSU Hayward

Chancellor’s Office ConsultantJohn Karras