LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for NLS-REPORTS Archives


NLS-REPORTS Archives

NLS-REPORTS Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS Home

NLS-REPORTS  May 2005

NLS-REPORTS May 2005

Subject:

Netwwork Bulletin No. 05-25 (Digital long-term planning group-Report from the Sept. 2004 meeting)

From:

NLSBPH <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

NLS Documents for Network Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 23 May 2005 10:38:56 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (1203 lines)

        Network Bulletin No. 05-25.




        Date:  May 20, 2005
        Subject:  Digital long-term planning group
        Index term:   Report from the September 2004 meeting




        The Digital Long-Term Planning Group held its fifth meeting on September 22-24,

        2004.  A summary is enclosed.  As Bob McDermott is no longer with NLS,
        comments on the summary may be addressed either to Jean Moss or to Michael
        Moodie, deputy director, who will coordinate future meetings.


        Enclosure

        For further information contact:

        Jean Moss
        Digital Projects Coordinator
        (202) 707-9238
        [log in to unmask]


        ____________________________________________________________________




        Digital Long-Term Planning Group
        September 22-24, 2004

        Group Members Participating:
        David Andrews, NFB
        Lori Bell, Illinois
        Kim Charlson, Massachusetts
        Paul Edwards, ACB
        Barbara Goral, Colorado
        Karen Keninger, Iowa
        Robert Maier, Massachusetts
        Donna Jones Morris, Utah
        Karen Odean, Illinois
        Peggy Rudd, Texas
        Guynell Williams, South Carolina
        Michael York, New Hampshire
        Bob Axtell, NLS (Recorder)
        Kurt Cylke, NLS
        Judy Dixon, NLS
        Robert Fistick, NLS
        Bob Jones, NLS
        Brad Kormann, NLS
        Bob McDermott, NLS (Chair)
        Michael Moodie, NLS
        Jean Moss, NLS
        Steve Prine, NLS
        Carolyn Sung, NLS
        Deborah Toomey, NLS
        David Whittall, NLS

        Wednesday, September 22

        9:00 - 10:30   Announcements and NLS reports

        Announcements

        Kurt Cylke welcomed the group, particularly the new members.  A number of
        COSLA members have joined the group.  Robert Maier, Donna Jones Morris, and
        Peggy Rudd were able to participate at this meeting.  Sara Jones of Nevada, and
        Doris Ott of North Dakota, are new members but were unable to attend this meeting.
        David Andrews has joined the group from  NFB.  Lori Bell of the Mid-Illinois
        Talking Book Center has also joined.  Cylke remarked on the significant number of
        state librarians present, as it reflected the number of voices representing the parent
        agencies of regional libraries and it ensured that COSLA as a whole would get a
        broader view of the proceedings.  He also noted the large NLS staff presence and the
        high interest that it signified.  He mentioned that they would be participating in the
        proceedings occasionally.

        Robert McDermott covered the agreements on conduct for the meeting:  to begin on
        time, to be back on time, that there should be only one speaker at a time, and that
        everyone is equal. Also be more forward than polite in one's remarks.  He said that
        previous meetings began with brainstorming and discussion of the prior meeting but
        that, with the current meeting's full schedule, the format would be different.
        Opinions are needed on many things related to the digital talking book and those
        issues will dominate the meeting.  He opened the table for comments and questions
        and there were none.

        NLS reports

        NLS staff presented update sessions on NLS digital talking-book activities.

        Strategic plan

        Jean Moss gave a presentation which noted that the strategic plan calls for digital
        talking books and players to become available in 2008.

        Discussion began with a question about the newsletters and publicity.  The three
        primary targets of the newsletters are state libraries, network libraries, and patrons.
        Patrons are also targeted through inserts of the newsletter content in TBT and BBR.
        The newsletter content will also be on the Web and will be sent to the media.  NLS
        will ensure that network libraries receive the press release content before the media
        receives it.  It became evident at the last COSLA meeting that communication on the
        digital program needs improvement.   NLS is spending $100,000 to remedy the
        problem.

        Player design contract

        Michael Moodie said that the player design contract  is the major project of NLS on
        which everything rests.  A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design of two major
        components, player and cartridge, was released in September 2004.  The RFP
        includes a requirement for mailing container and duplication design concepts which
        can be fed to other studies specifically on those subjects.

        The RFP will go to seven hundred professional engineering companies on a GPO
        schedule for contracting.  The firms on the schedule work on or contribute to
        complex projects of all kinds.  Many will be qualified for this project.  If a firm does
        not have experience working with the blind, they are required to partner with a
        company that does.  That requirement is a cornerstone of the process so that all have
        this capability.  There is a basic requirement to validate with key stakeholders that
        the requirements are correct, up-to-date, and complete.

        There are many design parameters:  that the user interface design is intuitive, easy to
        use, and functional; that the design works for diverse users' needs; that the needs of
        the most to least sophisticated users are accommodated; and that industrial design
        principles are followed to make the product look and feel good.  The player must be
        designed for ease of manufacture.  It must have good audio engineering and software.
        It must be designed for player support:  it must be either repairable, or robust but not
        repairable.  If repairable, the design must include how it is to be repaired and ensure
        the ease of repair.

        A key requirement of the RFP is testing for usability.  The testing will be iterative
        with users, librarians, and repair personnel, the three groups that will be working
        with the player for years.  The design effort for the cartridge and container must be
        coordinated with the firm doing the distribution study.  The overall system must be
        streamlined, with less manual labor built into both machine and book efforts.  The
        preliminary estimate is eighteen months plus field testing and hand-off to the
        manufacturing firm.  The design firm must stay involved a year after the design is
        complete to work with manufacturer, ensuring that the player is built according to the
        design specification and that, if there are problems with the design, they are resolved.

        The group discussion raised the issue of disposal for disposable machines.  While the
        quantity is expected to be small, NLS has seen the issue with C-1 machines and will
        address it. Regional libraries are interested in helping with testing.  A discussion of
        price points for the player yielded $150 as the low end of NLS expectations, with
        $200 being the more likely figure.  Concerning the possibility of the price being too
        high, NLS has prepared Congress for a substantial funding need.  Congress seems
        well disposed as we are doing well in our requests.  If the price were $300, it would
        not put the player out the picture, but it would take longer to come up to a full
        inventory.  Nothing so far indicates that the price will be higher than $200.  The
        player is less complex than the current C-1 machine.

        Digital asset management

        Robert McDermott summarized the continuing evolution of the systems needed to
        support the production and future distribution of digital talking books at NLS.
        Initially, digital recording was not perceived as an automation issue.  The NLS studio
        started using digital audio tape (DAT) for creating DTBs, in the same paradigm as
        analog audio production.  DAT proved to be cumbersome and a change was made to
        recording on removable hard drives.  These also had cumbersome aspects and were
        prone to failure.  It became clear that networked online storage was needed for
        smooth studio operations.  That storage could also be used for performing quality
        assurance review on completed books.  The requirements for networked storage were
        analyzed and a storage area network (SAN) solution was chosen.  The SAN system is
        now up and running in the NLS Studio and will be used by the Quality Assurance
        Section in the near future.  It is designed to hold a year's worth of books and the
        current workload of the Quality Assurance Section.

        Beyond the immediate operational need for handling the workflow of books in NLS,
        there is also a need for a system to electronically receive books from producers and
        to store and manage the books once they are approved for distribution.  The original
        idea of storing the CDs on shelves as is now done with master tapes is not adequate.
        NLS will occasionally need to update the entire collection to take advantage of
        improvements in compression or digital rights management, or to include new NISO
        features.  To do so, NLS will need access to an electronic archive of the original
        recordings.  NLS estimates that the archive will require about thirteen terabytes of
        storage per year.  NLS is proposing a digital asset management system to track the
        location and pertinent data about a book when it is in-process, in the archive, and in
        distribution.  We also have a requirement to accept books from producers
        electronically rather than physically receiving CDs through the mail.   For NLS, mail
        is becoming increasingly unreliable due to security requirements imposed on the
        legislative branch.  Electronic transmission of books is not a simple task because the
        uncompressed books are so large four gigabytes on average.  NLS has assigned an
        analysis of our requirements to a contractor.  The analysis was begun in March 2004,
        and NLS received a draft in August which is being reviewed for amendments and
        additions.  When the analysis is complete, an RFP for service will be issued.

        Web-Magazines

        Judy Dixon described a pilot that began in late 2003.  Magazines were considered a
        good candidate for testing Web delivery.  They are smaller than books, are amenable
        to partial downloads, and are released monthly.  The test started with thirty-five beta
        testers and interest has increased.  Three titles are being posted, each from a different
        producer.  A contractor works with NLS to mount the books on the web site  The
        producer sends files, the contractor unzips them, checks the NCX for articles, and
        automatically generates HTML for title names and files.

        The user logs onto the site listing the magazines, picks one and goes to the issue
        menu. He/she can then go to an article menu or download the whole issue. The users
        were provided with Victor Readersoft and an unpack tool from Bookshare.  At the
        end of June NLS surveyed the thirty-five users and received a 65 percent response.
        All but one had successfully logged on and downloaded a magazine.  Positive
        feedback included the ability to navigate from article to article, not having to wait for
        mail delivery, and exceptional sound quality.  Users were disappointed with being
        tethered to a computer and waiting for magazines to post (a problem at our end).
        They also did not like the amount of time download took.  Two users said there were
        too many steps in the process. Suggestions:  seven users suggested integrating the
        unpack tool with Readersoft so books load directly to the bookshelf; three suggested
        more markup; and three suggested being able to download to a portable player and
        decreasing the file size.  NLS is looking at how to decrease the file size and how it
        would affect sound quality.   We are aware that the download process is somewhat
        tedious.  Neil Bernstein, a new member of the Engineering Section, is looking at the
        site to get a fresh look at simplifying it.

        In the discussion, four testers were among the members at the table.  They had
        numerous comments and suggestions.  Many were concerned with making the
        process easier and broadening the number of people who would be able to use it
        effectively. One liked the system but suggested trying a lower sampling rate with
        smaller file sizes to broaden the range of people who could use it.  Another
        commented that the download process had a lot of steps and required some computer
        literacy.  The success of the experiment depends on who the target is.  The current
        target is computer users who choose to read that way.  Perhaps users would find it
        helpful to know how many steps there are (for example knowing that it is step 1 of
        5).  It is believed that the demand will grow as more people move to broadband
        access to the Internet.  Growth in turn would require more support, which is a
        concern, as only two people at NLS can give support now.  Another trend that will
        increase interest is the growing number and availability of portable devices that can
        read digital files.  The ability to use portable devices with NLS books would require
        accommodating DRM and meeting NLS requirements for sales restricted to eligible
        readers.  One tester felt the Bookport needed more explanation and another said that
        he used the material with a Telex Scholar but he found using more than one layer of
        navigation levels confusing.  There needs to be clearer feedback from the reader on
        navigation levels and there is no consensus on how to do it yet.


        Web-Books

        Kurt Cylke noted that we plan to have a program in 2008 with books on flash
        memory.  At the same time we want to have books online.  Our first step is Web-
        Magazines.  Web-Books are scheduled for implementation in May 2005.  We
        contacted Plextor, now doing a streaming book program in Tokyo. The proposal is to
        do streaming for 1,500 books with testers and for full rollout in 2008.  Later NLS
        will design a downloadable books system.  It will take longer due to DRM issues.
        NLS may not be able to do a sole source contract with Plextor, but they will submit a
        proposal in a week or so.

        Oregon petition

        Kurt Cylke called this an awkward situation but said it should be discussed. Since the
        meeting in San Diego, a COSLA representative contacted the ACB and NFB
        representatives on this group to discuss the situation behind the scenes.  An article
        has been submitted to Public Libraries, along with comments from two users to be
        selected by the consumer organizations  A petition was distributed to the group,
        along with the Oregon article.  Regarding the petition, the author was encouraging
        support from whoever wanted wished to sign.  Most signers (85%) appear not tobe
        users or librarians for the blind.  The articles will be discussed on Friday after
        everyone has a chance to read them.

        Following the COSLA meeting in San Diego, NLS has initiated a program to visit
        each state library in one year and has made thirty-five visits thus far.  NLS
        determined earlier not to try to raise readership before the digital rollout.  Because of
        the level of anxiety expressed during the visits, a public relations firm has been
        engaged to pursue a nationwide campaign to raise the number of readers by 70,000.
        This is in direct response to COSLA concerns.  In addition to the $100,000 for news
        on the digital effort, funds will be expended on raising the readership.

        The group discussion centered on readership.  A Colorado group is encouraging
        learning disabled readers to use the program.  This is an area where numbers could
        increase, but is tricky because most learning disabled do not fall under the federal
        physical disability requirement.  If the requirement is violated, NLS could lose postal
        privileges, as almost happened to Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (and to NLS)
        when they tried to ignore it.  The difficulty of adding this type of detail (the physical
        eligibility requirement) to a TV spot was noted.   The basic requirement is that, for
        physical disability, a medical doctor must certify.

        10:45 - 12:15  Digital medium: flash memory

        Michael Moodie introduced Neil Bernstein, who is new to NLS.  Neil has a B.S. in
        electrical engineering from Brown and an M.S. from Berkeley.  He has worked with
        MCI in networking and in hardware and software for delivery of digital media.  Neil
        led a presentation and discussion on USB flash memory.  The USB flash drive is
        NLS' medium of choice for physical digital distribution.  It consists of a flash-
        memory chip, a controller, and a USB connector.

        The arguments presented for choosing flash memory included:  it has no moving
        parts; it is reusable; it can be mass-duplicated; it is a widely available and mature
        technology; it is continuing to get cheaper; and there is a multiple and growing
        number of sources, as all chip makers are moving towards making them.

        USB flash memory is particularly appropriate to the NLS program.  It will allow
        technology independence of the book because it allows changes later without
        redesigning the player. It makes players more independent because the player's USB
        port can be used to connect to other devices.  It allows customization such as
        allowing NLS to write the book to the chip, but not allowing the chip to be written by
        the user.  The book can be sized, labeled, and packaged to order, with braille and
        large-print labeling.  USB allows customization and is widely supported.  The
        network would be able to procure supplies for local production.

        Concerns about flash media were addressed:

        Cost.  The July 2003 report of the Gartner Group, a premier IT consulting firm,
        indicates that costs are going down and the price drop is projected to continue.  A
        chart showing cost projections to 2007 for 128MB and 256MB with costs declining
        to $9.09 and $15.18 respectively was shown.  NLS will continue communication
        with the author of the report for updates and IDC for corroborating evidence, as well
        as with manufacturers such as Sandisk.  All think the numbers are conservative and
        prices will probably drop faster.  Earlier projections for 2004 bore out in quick test of
        Amazon.com retails.  Retail prices are cheaper than predicted wholesale.

        Capacity floor: Capacity floor is the price and size of the smallest available chip.
        As technology changes, small chips are no longer available, but the price of the
        smallest available chip is expected to level out.  This is not a problem since a bigger
        chip can always be used.

        Durability: USB flash is extremely durable. They have ten years data retention with
        constant use.  Sandisk says that, if stored, they can last fifty to sixty years.  Humidity,
        shock, bending, twisting, and electromagnetism are not issues. The BBC reported
        tests of memory card formats dipped into Coca Cola and coffee; run through a
        washing machine;   run over with a skate board and a toy car; and given to a six-year-
        old to play with.  All survived with 100 percent of the data intact.

        Write speed:  It takes one to two minutes to write a book from a computer.  The
        write time will decrease, but not as much as price.

        The cost of  developing customized parts:  The controller chip and shell will be
        customized which will present a one-time cost for design.

        New memory technology:  The next big thing is magnetic RAM.  It may replace
        flash and hard drives. NLS could move to that, using the USB port, and still keep the
        player. This technology is five to ten years away and not developed enough to cause a
        change of choice.


        Michael Moodie discussed the group's initial media requirements and how USB
        flash measures up:

         Not under three dollars but 128MB will be under seven.
         The memory chip is in a sealed cartridge.
         The cartridge is large enough for large-print and braille labels.
         It is large enough to be picked up.
         It can be inserted only one way for ease of explanation to patrons.
         It will stand up to cleaning from household agents.
         It  facilitates handling by automated equipment.
         It is stackable.
         It will function after immersion.
         It has 250 write cycles.
         Data remain readable under normal conditions and occasional extremes: good for
         ten, probably twenty, years.
         It is playable after exposure to mailbox conditions.
         It is not affected by humidity, shock, normal vibration, bending twisting, or
         electrostatic discharge.
         The connectors maintain reliable contact after 10,000 insertions.
         They resist contamination (the actual connectors will be protected by a shell.)
         They resist mechanical damage.
         They resist corrosion.
         Most cartridges are in 2MB/second range for write speeds.
         The read speeds are as fast as write speeds.
         It will have write protection from unauthorized parties.
         It is not ignitable.
         It will not outgas.
         It will avoid single source procurements.
         It should adapt to changes in memory technology.
         The labels should stay on but will be removable--important for distribution-on-
         demand system.  The cartridge must make relabeling as automated as possible.

        The presentation was enthusiastically received and there seemed to be satisfaction
        with the progress on the media.  There was interest in getting these media by non-
        library agencies and groups.  NLS plans to make them available to other groups
        through a rider on the NLS production contracts, although NLS itself could not sell
        them.  Resellers could get involved later.  There was also interest in being able to use
        the player with other flash devices, which would be possible. NLS believes
        commercial audiobooks will move to flash, and we want our player to be able to play
        them as well.  Other uses for the standard USB port would include connectivity to
        other devices such as add-ons for physically disabled readers, for diagnostic devices,
        or for upgrading the player software to the next version of the standard.  This led to a
        short discussion of upgrades, which RFB&D does by sending CDs to patrons.  NLS
        plans on handling the upgrades.  We could even append the upgrades to books the
        patron will receive so that it occurs transparently.  One participant asked what would
        happen if USB changed.  NLS responded that we would not have to change in
        response.  NLS could procure enough spare parts to ensure a long production period
        as we have done for recorded disc and cassette players.  There was a question about
        robotic equipment for burning flash units, as is done now with cassettes.  At first
        such equipment would need to be purpose-built but after that we would definitely
        have it. This is not a difficult technology.  We have it for cassette duplication, and
        cartridge manipulation is easier than for CDs.

        To a question concerning patrons copying books, NLS responded that it would not be
        allowed.  Our books are produced under law and written agreement, to be available
        only to blind and physically handicapped readers.  We have to be able to prevent
        patrons from giving them to ineligible readers.  NLS has not yet determined how to
        do this, but we will. Otherwise, the program is in jeopardy.  The books will be
        downloadable, but for the same reason we will be doing streaming first until we
        know how to prohibit use.

        General discussion

        The group returned to the topic of the ___Public Libraries__ articles.  NLS
        suggested that consumer agencies supply commentators.  The articles will appear in
        April.  There was a suggestion that the members of the group should take the
        initiative to answer these sorts of criticisms.  NLS has communicated to NFB and
        ACB conferences for twenty-five years in an effort to keep them abreast of
        developments here, nevertheless we have dropped the ball on more extensive
        communications.  We are making amends.  With respect to the article from Oregon,
        the statistics cited do not consider the effect of the end of the disc program.  The
        information about the Netherlands books is incorrect.  They are not using DAISY
        technology.  The CNIB has approximately 2,000 titles, which is not a complete
        program.  A COSLA representative said it was incumbent upon them to make sure
        the facts were on the table at COSLA.  This is why there are now several COSLA
        members in this group to make sure one person will not dominate  reporting to that
        body.  The group agreed that the author of the article in question was no doubt
        sincere in his writing but that the facts and statistics used were misleading.

        The discussion moved to reaction among the blind community.  A consumer
        representative said that there is a group of blind people aware of digital talking-book
        developments and who have expectations that are not being met. The DAISY and
        RFB&D people believe NLS is moving too slowly.  He did not share this sentiment
        but suggested that NLS maximize navigational markup on the books, and that they
        should be marked to the page level, or there would be more dissatisfaction.  This
        issue has been extensively discussed at NLS.  NLS will make every effort but some
        books, especially the retrospectively converted ones, will probably not be as heavily
        marked up as the most intellectual reader might want.  NLS will learn from RFB&D
        and others who are already releasing digital talking books but marking to the page
        level could be problematic.  NLS is trying to learn to make the technology work so
        that this is feasible, but it is still not easy to mark up.   The issue of synchronized text
        and recordings was raised.  NLS gave a lot of early attention to this possibility, but it
        is much more complex than  anticipated.  A librarian noted that these types of books
        were very promising and that she sometimes reads braille and recorded books in
        tandem to help with foreign or unfamiliar names.  Another added that the promise of
        synchronized full text was a dream worth having and that NLS should continue to
        examine ways of making this highly featured type of book feasible to produce.

        There was discussion about the current range of players and their frustrating
        inconsistencies.  But these inconsistencies were viewed as natural at this early stage
        and that the market would choose the best features.

        Finally, a state librarian mentioned that she wished to do a performance-based study
        of libraries for the blind, going to customers to see if their objectives were being met.
        She would like to determine the impact of the program on people's lives.  She asked
        if other libraries had tried this.  NLS noted that Deborah Toomey had assumed
        responsibility for a similar project, initiated by the Librarian of Congress.  Deborah
        added that the first meeting of the committee will be next month and that she would
        be happy to discuss it further.  On the issue of how the program affects peoples lives,
        there are the contrasting effects of lifelong users who don't know what life would be
        like without the program and new users who may have unrealistic expectations based
        on their experience of total access to the printed word.  In past studies done by NLS,
        interviewees were reluctant to criticize the program for fear of losing it.  Perhaps
        using specific questions would resolve the problem.  One member suggested that
        BPH libraries not be judged by the standards used for other libraries.

        1:15 - 2:45         Player  transition

        Jerry Ducrest, program planning consultant and contractor to NLS,  gave an overview
        of the Player Transition Study.  NLS needed to determine the requirements for future
        cassette machine production, repair services, parts requirements, and policies
        affecting supply and demand during the transition to DTB.  The purpose of the study
        is to plan to phase out cassette- machine production and to phase in digital talking-
        book machine production up to 2008 and after.  Alternative transition plans are to be
        formulated.

        One primary audience of the study is the Inspector General's Office at LC that has
        proposed to discontinue current production of machines immediately and just do
        repairs.  NLS needs an objective study to demonstrate the effects of discontinuing
        production (or for that matter repair, and spare parts) at various times.

        The introduction of digital machines will be considered simultaneously with the
        phase- out of cassette players.  The study has produced a modeling tool for
        evaluating alternative transition plans over a fourteen-year transition period.  The
        model allows one to concentrate on detail, allows changes of assumptions or
        variables to run various scenarios, and forces objectivity when the outputs are
        created.  The focus is on NLS (i.e., not network) costs. C-2 cassette machines and
        record players were not considered in the study.

        The model considers: production of machines, attrition from damage or loss, repair
        capacity (commercial and volunteer), and parts inventory needed for support. It
        calculates parts needed and number of repairs (warranty, volunteer, commercial).  It
        accounts for differences in patron desire to switch from cassette to digital.  The
        model produces reports, tables, and graphs.

        The discussion centered on assumptions of how long people would want to retain or
        receive cassette players in addition to or instead of digital talking-book players.
        Magazines were a key issue.  Magazines will probably remain on cassette and not be
        distributed on flash because patrons keep their magazines.  Thirty percent of our
        readers receive magazines, so the study assumes that thirty percent of current readers
        would want to retain their cassette machines.  Additionally, it was assumed that
        another twenty percent would want them to play older, unconverted cassette books.

        There was also a question of how and to whom the digital talking-book players were
        to be distributed, as that might affect demand for cassette players.  The assumption
        for the model was that new patrons would be assigned DTBMs rather than CBMs
        and that only fifty percent of existing patrons would want DTBMs.  These
        assumptions were widely challenged on a number of grounds.

        Ducrest reviewed scenarios that had been run through the model and presented as
        graphs.  They predicted where shortfalls in CBM and DTBM supply, if any, would
        fall.  The plan assumes the completion of transition phase in 2012 (meaning everyone
        who wants a DTBM will have one) and the completion of the residual phase by 2017.
        Five years is a reasonable period to assume for cassettes to drop to a negligible
        number.  Parts obsolescence also a factor in this timing.  The scenarios were:

        1.   CBM production would continue for one more year with 6,000 repairs per
        year.   Unacceptable shortfalls for CBMs in 2008 were predicted.

        2.   Repairs increased to 12,000 per year (allowing for a period to ramp-up to that
        number) but this also hit inventory problems in 2007-2009.

        3.   CBM production would continue for two years with 6,000 repairs per year.
        Availability in 2007 fell below the ten percent line which was considered dangerous.

        4.       CBM production would continue for two years with 12,000 repairs per year.
        Fall below ten percent availability was postponed to 2008.

        5.       Assumes production for three years with 6,000 repairs a year.  Inventory never
        falls below eleven percent.

        6.       Assumes production for three years with 3,000 repairs a year.  Inventory falls
        to ten percent in 2008, but it could be feasible.

        A cost comparison of the three most viable implementation scenarios (nos. 4-6) was
        presented.  The average annual costs for the three years ran from $15,371,938 for
        scenario four to $16,183,854 for scenario five, with scenario six costing $16,045,284.
         All scenarios would produce a surplus in the end but NLS needs to get past the
        2008-2009 pressure point.

        The group discussed the distribution of the DTBMs and how it would affect demand
        for CBMs.  Some thought that new readers, if given a DTBM, would have little
        interest in cassettes but that existing readers would want to keep the CBM, possibly
        until they were more confident in the digital program.  NLS proposed that the
        propensity of existing patrons to want the CBM is likely but perhaps not ninety-three
        percent as assumed.   Some thought that the decline in demand for CBMs would be
        rapid.  The group was interested in finding a way to migrate the magazine program to
        digital form as a way of significantly reducing the demand for CBMs.  Using a
        cheaper cassette player was suggested, but NLS believes there is no realistic way to
        introduce and maintain a new cassette machine it would require a solicitation and
        award a new production item as well as bringing it up to speed.  A disposable
        cassette player was also suggested.  Because many readers also have their own
        portable cassette players, many may send back their CBMs. Still, a supply of NLS
        machines is needed as an insurance policy.  It was suggested that the new machine
        would be easier to explain to new patrons.  With the publicity effort, there will be a
        large demand initially for the DTBM among new readers.

        3:00 - 4:30         Reading at risk

        Mark Bauerlein, director of Research National Endowment for the Arts, gave a
        presentation on the report__ Reading at Risk,__ which has received widespread
        media attention. He is presenting his study to different groups: educators, publishers,
        writers, and librarians.   The report is the first step in addressing a difficult problem.
        It presents the results from the literary  segment of the Survey of Public Participation
        in the Arts, conducted by Bureau of Census and designed by NEA. __Reading at
        Risk__ presents results from 1982-2002 and provides a detailed profile for the role
        literature plays in the lives of Americans.

        The study correlates literary reading with geographic region, gender, race/ethnicity,
        education, age, other cultural and social activities. It profiles households through
        interviews and follow-up phone calls to ensure a proper demographic representation
        of the American population as well as correlating with other cultural events,
        entertainment.  Literary reading includes any of the following:  novels or short stories
        of any kind, poetry, and drama.  It does not include non-fiction.   No distinctions are
        made for quality or length.  One poem a year would count as literary reading. It
        included any medium such as books, magazines, or the Internet.

        The key finding is that literary reading has declined dramatically over twenty years:
        56.9 percent in 1982 to 54 percent in 992 to 46.7 percent in 2002.  The rate of decline
        is increasing: less than half of population now reads literature.  The decline in literary
        readings parallels a decline in total book reading at about half the rate.   Women read
        more than men, but literary reading by both groups is declining.  The gender gap has
        existed since last century but is getting wider. The west has the highest rate of
        reading, over fifty percent.  The south has the lowest at forty percent. One-third of
        men read literature.  In a time-use study of Bureau of Labor Statistics, men spend two
        hours watching television, one hour playing games, and eight minutes a day reading.
        Dr. Bauerlein projected that the next study will be much worse.  Reading skills and
        rates on texts requiring some engagement are declining in the younger generation.
        Literary reading correlates to education, but every education group dropped.  The
        college and graduate school rate dropped the most.  All age groups have dropped.
        Literary reading by 18-24 year olds has declined by seventeen percent, but there is an
        asymmetrical drop among the three youngest groups.  Formerly the most active
        group, young readers are now the least active, a 13-17 percent decline vs. 2-4 percent
        decline in the older groups.

        Publishers say revenues are going up but that reflects inflation and rises in price. Unit
        sales have been flat for the last ten years even though the population is growing.  The
        decline in reading foreshadows an erosion in cultural and civic participation.  The
        survey shows that literary readers perform more volunteer work and go to art
        museums.

        Dr.  Bauerlein considered events in the last ten years that could have caused the
        dramatic results.  The decline in reading coincides with increased participation in a
        variety of electronic media, including: the Internet, video games, portable digital
        devices, DVDs, CDs, and cell phones.  Television watching is constant while new
        technologies have absorbed further leisure time. In 1999, the average American child
        lived in a household with 2.9 televisions, 1.8 VCRs, 3.1 radios, 2.1 CD players, 1.4
        video game players, and 1 computer.

        In summary,  American literacy (the inclination to read) is in steep decline.  More
        than reading is at stake: this decline has cultural, social, civic, and economic
        consequences. The literary heritage is endangered.  Cultural participation is shrinking
        and civic engagement is eroding.

        The discussion tended to focus on various failings of the education system and
        standardized testing.  The results seemed consistent with the NLS experience of
        declining readership.  The biggest declines, four percent over four years, in younger
        readers seems to support the report.

        Thursday, September 23

        9:00 - 12:15        Digital book distribution

        Distribution scenario

        Michael Moodie introduced this morning's session as being a wide-ranging
        discussion of how we move to the distribution of digital talking books.  Following up
        on yesterdays's machine transition session,  Jerry Ducrest sought the group's input
        on some assumptions to be used for the CBM transition model.  The current
        assumption is that fifty percent of new patrons will want CBMs (thirty percent for
        magazines and twenty percent for older cassette books that had not been converted).
        For existing patrons, when they receive DTBMs it is assumed that ninety percent will
        want to keep their CBM because they are aware of older titles only available on
        cassette.

        In group discussion, a consensus was reached that ninety percent of patrons would
        want to keep their CBMs. One group member suggested that libraries could shape the
        response by encouraging or discouraging the use of CBMs.  Another factor in
        retention of CBMs would be how quickly regional libraries switched to digital
        talking-book format for their locally produced books and magazines.  Many are still
        not sure and will not necessarily have to switch when NLS does.  One way or
        another, there will be a lot of residual material only on cassette for years to come.

        In addressing the assumption of fifty percent CBM usage for new patrons, the
        discussion moved to the effects and fairness of offering DTBMs to new patrons first.
        Many librarians had problems with this plan.  They were sure they would face
        strident objections from the many existing patrons who would have heard about the
        digital talking-book program by then.  It was suggested that NLS increase DTBM
        production in the first year.   NLS feels that it is too risky to go straight to full
        production because too many problems will only be found during the first year of
        production. We need to correct initial problems before ramping up.

        Another factor on demand will be the availability of non-NLS players.  Many people
        will buy them if they can.  This is a possibility.  The manufacturers will have to agree
        to restrict sales to eligible NLS readers before we can enable them to use the DRM.

        It is expected that there will be two classes of patrons who want the DTBM. There
        are the early adopters who already have DAISY equipment. They should be among
        the first group to receive DTBMs because they will be good testers and they will
        complain otherwise.  The second group is vaguely aware of digital equipment, if only
        from their children.  If they hear that new patrons are getting DTBMs they will
        complain.  But there will be a huge number who are not aware of digital players and
        who do not care about them.  Possibly sixty percent of readers would not care that
        much.   Also we certainly do not want to turn off young new readers who are used to
        digital equipment.  It seemed possible to balance distribution by being aware of these
        differences within the groups.    A recent listserv message suggested that DTBMs be
        offered to the most active patrons.

        Some librarians want guidance from NLS on how to allocate new DTBMs.
        Guidelines will help prevent perceptions of favoritism, which was a problem during
        the distribution of CBMs.

        Some group members thought that most people were expecting full availability by
        2008, and they do not realize that the transition could take years.  NLS proposed that
        the people who are aware of the date could be accommodated.   Others disagreed
        because they were already seeing a demand and expected that demand to increase.
        Publicity needs to be clear that 2008 is the start of a transition and not full
        availability.  The problems of early demand argue for a hastening of the time line for
        machine design, testing, and production.  NLS proposed that the 2008 time line is the
        best that can be done.  It is not a resource issue but rather the number of steps and
        tests that need to be done before full production can begin.

        Moodie summarized the discussion so far.  In response to the group he agreed that
        the transition model would have to be revised in favor of giving ninety percent of
        new DTBMs to current patrons from the existing fifty percent assumption.  The ten
        percent for new readers would go primarily to the younger new patrons who should
        be encouraged to remain in the program.  He thought there was more work needed on
        defining the groups that would receive the DTBMs first.

        Magazines

        The discussion then turned to magazine distribution.  This plays an important role in
        continuing the demand for CBMs among DTBM recipients.  Many of the network
        librarians and others thought the assumption that patrons would resist the idea of
        returning magazines should be examined, perhaps through a survey.  If magazines
        were returned then they could be converted to the flash memory cards as well, but if
        they were "throwaways," it would be too expensive to consider.  Many of the
        librarians currently distribute magazines on cassette and expect them back.  Patrons
        are surprised when they hear they do not have to return NLS issues now.
        Additionally, the usefulness of digital formatting and mark up for the magazines was
        noted, since most people do not read magazines completely or straight through.
        There is concern that even a ten percent nonreturn rate could be too costly for NLS.
        Would it be feasible to cut off readers who did not return magazines? Some libraries
        do it now.



        Digital book distribution

        Michael Moodie reviewed the upcoming study on digital book distribution that will
        analyze the three options for distributing digital talking books to patrons: mass
        duplication, in which copies of every title are sent to the network libraries;
        duplication on demand, in which network libraries have nothing on their shelves and
        all patron requests are filled by duplication centers; and the hybrid model, in which
        the most popular titles are distributed from network libraries and the less active titles
        are duplicated on demand at duplication centers.  The hybrid model, the most likely,
        was prompted by an early look at circulation figures that suggest twenty percent of
        the titles account for eighty percent of circulation.  The RFP for the study will be out
        in October.

        The first phase of the study includes building a cost model; suppling values for key
        variables that affect costs such as loss rates, turnaround time, and the proportion of
        cartridges being reused by libraries; creating screening and evaluation criteria for the
        options under consideration; and evaluating the options and making a decision.  NLS
        sees it as a five-month study and needs a conclusion on the scenario so that the
        circulation system vendors can make the appropriate changes to their systems.  A
        second phase of the study develops the design of the selected system.  The study
        includes an analysis of mailing containers and labels, which are crucial to an on-
        demand type of circulation, because of the need to replace the label for every
        circulation.

        During discussion, the question was raised on network input to the study.  The point
        was made that input from this meeting is not the same as having the contractor
        getting the input for the study.  NLS has planned further coordination with the group
        at the end of phase 1, presenting the selected scenario for discussion, along with
        design issues.  The contractor can meet with the group prior to phase 2.  Midway into
        the design of the DTBM, they will discuss circulation system issues with vendors.

        Many librarians were concerned about network cost figures.  NLS does not have the
        time nor the resources to do the kind of in-depth study to recreate all of the network
        costs.  The figures for the network were to be taken from a 1989 study and adjusted
        for inflation.  The proportions should be close for facilities, staff, etc.  Concern was
        expressed that some network libraries have been changing the way they operate,
        revising the kinds of teams that carry out the work, and that proportional adjustment
        of 1989 figures will not give an accurate picture.

        There was also concern about the cost and effort of circulating both cassettes and
        DTBs during transition.  The problem was considered, but NLS believes that the
        circulation numbers will remain the same.  NLS plans to design the new container
        with the same footprint as the current container or smaller so they can be
        intershelved.  Gaps in book numbers may require random shelving.  All agreed that
        the shelving solution would vary depending on the situation of each library.  There
        will be a large one-time effort involved in initially getting the new materials shelved.
        Beyond the initial setup, the costs of cassette and DTB service by libraries should not
        be additive.  There was also the question of how circulation systems will handle
        requests for titles that are in both formats.  This will be similar to when NLS had FDs
        and RCs.  Patrons will have the preference of receiving only one format or either,
        perhaps with different choices under different circumstances.

        The design phase of the distribution study contract will consider: operating
        procedures, service standards, NLS policies, detailed resource specifications;
        functional specifications for automated circulation systems, duplication process, and
        a data distribution system for copies on demand.  It will also consider the duplication
        process for copies at network libraries, shelving issues, communication interfaces,
        telecommunication needs, and packaging and labeling operations.  It will include a
        transition plan and the development of statements of work, if we choose an on-
        demand or hybrid system.

        In discussion, librarians were concerned with handling requests when a title might be
        held locally or centrally in a distribution center.  NLS envisioned that the circulation
        system will know where the book is and route the request to the center when
        appropriate.  The center will not be a backup site.  Requests will not be routed to the
        center if a book is local but the library does not have a copy on the shelf. The center
        (in a hybrid scheme) will not be designed to handle the massive numbers of requests
        that would come in that case.  Conceivably the library could duplicate it locally.
        Libraries will use copy allotment to request an appropriate number of titles and
        handle out-of-stock as they do today.  Another librarian was dubious about the ability
        of a center to get everything out on the day received.  NLS is designing a first-in,
        first-out service model.  The network will not be charged if we can help it.  The study
        will examine the costs of duplication on demand in greater detail.  The cost is
        critical.  If the cost was three dollars, NLS could not afford it, in which case NLS
        would look at getting money from libraries but we realize that is also not realistic.
        However, other options might be expensive to libraries as well.  Concerning the
        ability to prioritize a request, NLS plans on filling all requests in one mail card run,
        in which case prioritization would only move it up on the mail run list and have no
        effect on actual mailing.  There was also concern about the effect centralized
        distribution would have on circulation statistics.  If figures were cut because they
        only showed circulation of locally held books, funding agencies would want to know
        why.  Requests to the central facility could be counted much as if the book were in a
        branch library.  This led to discussion of counting circulation for downloadable
        books.  That issue will be put into the analysis.

        Further discussion with the group is needed concerning the allocation of books in a
        hybrid system.  How are titles categorized, i.e. which twenty percent goes to libraries
        and which eighty percent goes to the centers?  How is it determined that a title is no
        longer popular and should be moved from the libraries to the center?  How does one
        respond to a sudden high demand for a title?  What will happen if a library decides to
        keep all copies of books?  These questions are appropriate to a hybrid system and
        will be discussed after phase 1.

        One issue in the RFP is the interface with library circulation systems.  NLS will bring
        in vendors and independents to talk with the contractor to hammer out the details of
        what systems have to know and what data will go back and forth.  Conceptually,
        think of two printers connected to a system for printing mail cards.  One printer is in
        your building and one is in the center.  Your system knows which printer gets a
        particular mail card.

        The issue was raised that some libraries may want to abolish their collections and act
        as their own on-demand centers.  The question was raised as to why we would not
        center the on-demand distribution in regional libraries rather than contract centers.
        NLS believes that the vast majority of libraries do not have the infrastructure needed.
        On-demand centers require duplicating and labeling machines, huge storage servers,
        and support staff.  Most could not do it, although some will.  Some libraries may be
        supplemented by very large computing centers with lots of staff and automation
        support, but we cannot base the national system on requiring regional libraries to
        have such support.

        The session concluded outlining the plan.  Phase 1 of the study should be complete in
        four to five months.  Results can be presented at the next meeting.  Design issues
        may  be discussed then, after a scenario is chosen.  In the meantime, the group was
        encouraged to discuss the issues with their colleagues.  Midway through phase 2
        there will be discussions with system vendors.

        1:15 - 2:45         Analog to digital book transition issues

        Michael Moodie and Steve Prine started the discussion with a brief explanation of
        how the hybrid system would work.  During production, each book will be
        designated as being for mass duplication, for libraries, or for on-demand circulation
        from the center.  This cannot be customized for individual libraries, with some
        receiving copies of a title and others using on-demand circulation.  At some time, as
        a book becomes less popular, it will be declared no longer mass circulation and
        libraries will send all copies of the book to the on-demand center.

        NLS analyzed circulation data for three large states and found that the top moving
        books were mostly the same.   When the data was examined by age category of the
        book, the heaviest circulation was in the first two years, after which it dropped off.
        The data implies that the highly circulated books might form a T-shaped distribution,
        consisting mostly of the books produced in the previous three years along with the
        small set of perennially popular titles.

        The group discussed how titles in a series would fit into this model as readers will
        want to read a complete set.  Newer series titles tend to create demand for earlier
        ones.   All titles in a series should be converted to digital but not necessarily mass
        duplicated.  The less popular (earlier) ones would still be available on-demand.  The
        system will be designed so that all titles, whether mass duplicated or on-demand, are
        equally available.  Circulation systems will need to ensure that a preference for books
        in series overrides any preference for locally held books over on-demand books.

        Moodie solicited some particular input from the librarians.  How could the system be
        abused?  Why couldn't a library get all circulation from the on-demand center and
        have no collection to maintain?  NLS will decide which titles are in on-demand
        status.  Only on-demand titles can be ordered from the on-demand center.  Some
        titles will be on-demand from the start.  Others will become on-demand over time
        possibly to be determined by monitoring circulation statistics in bellwether regionals.
        Will a library have to return the cartridges when a title leaves mass duplication
        status?  Yes.  NLS cannot afford to keep that many flash memory cartridges tied up
        on the network library shelves.   How do we deal with libraries that might try to
        retain copies of books that are called back for on-demand distribution?  What about
        sleeper titles that unpredictably become popular?  Just as now, they are tricky to plan
        for.  A digital process similar to the tape quota program might be necessary for cases
        like this.  NLS would need more power in this situation to move copies from one
        regional to another.  It will be difficult to centrally track.   It is possible that the
        holding patterns of subregional libraries would change very little.  The hybrid system
        will be similar to the systems used in states with large subregional libraries.

        Returning to the circulation sample, even some recent titles do not circulate very
        much and do not need to be mass duplicated.  In the recent year's production, 600
        titles were circulated ten or less times.   The critical question for analysis is how to
        define a cutoff for on-demand titles.   It will be even harder to decide when to pull a
        title, which is why we may need to use bellwether libraries to collect data on
        circulation.  While the duplication center can work as fast as a regional, it will be
        costly for NLS to circulate popular titles on an acceptable scale.  NLS can only afford
        duplication of low-demand items because the processing costs are lower.  And it
        represents a small shift of burden from the states to NLS.  The librarians reiterated a
        point from earlier sessions that they needed a way to do duplication-on-demand for
        walk-in patrons.

        Could local libraries skew their selections towards the duplication-on-demand?
        Patron interest in new materials, prompted by TBT and the annual catalogs would
        prevent it.

        What about the evaluation criteria for selecting a model?  In earlier meetings the
        group said that a duplication center should take the same time as a regional to get
        material to the patrons.  But that raised two issues: time to get into the mail stream
        and time in the mail stream.  It seemed to some that it would take longer in the mail
        stream from a distribution center than from a regional library but some suggested that
        this is not necessarily true either.  We could stipulate that a book must be mailed
        within twenty-four hours or by the next business day, since the pick up time is
        determined by the postal service.  It might be necessary to limit the number of on-
        demand items a patron could request at one time.

        Local systems will need to be updated when books are returned so that more books
        can be sent.  Vendors will discuss how this will be handled.  Libraries will be
        notified when a book is issued to a patron from the distribution center.   Some
        librarians were concerned about books getting into the wrong container and going to
        the wrong place.  NLS might want to add an ID with the library label for mass
        duplicated books so the center will know where to forward misdirected titles.  Some
        suggested a tactile symbol to label a cartridge as belonging to a regional or to a
        duplication center.  Libraries should also be notified of wrong address returns.

        The group returned to issues of the transition.  If it is to be a hybrid system then the
        libraries must be "frontloaded" with a subset of the 20,000 DTB titles that will be
        available.  Possibly, NLS would send the production of the most recent three years
        minus those designated as probable low circulation.  The number of copies per title
        would be initially small, but would increase as the supply of DTBMs increased.   At
        some point, production of cassettes will stop.  It may be difficult or costly for NLS to
        continue producing cassettes until everyone who wants a DTBM has one.  There
        might be a period of two years when no new books were produced on cassette but not
        everyone had a DTBM.  The librarians were concerned about this.  It will not be easy
        to tell a patron that they can only have a CBM but no new books for it.

        3:00 - 3:45         Illinois libraries' new technology initiatives

        Lori Bell reported on a number of experimental projects at the Mid-Illinois Talking
        Book Center and elsewhere.  The eAudio and the Lobe Library projects focused on
        using Audible.com titles that were loaded onto Audible Otis players and circulated.
        The readers like the portability and sound quality of the Otis, and the availability of
        popular titles.  Many disliked the small controls and ear buds and missed the variable
        speed control available on other players.  Library staff found loading the players time
        consuming.  There is also no way to purchase a license to deliver content to library
        patrons over the Internet.  They have to be loaded onto a device.  The Lobe Library
        project expanded the test to five talking-book libraries who share an Audible.com
        collection.

        In the OverDrive/Adobe project, volunteers evaluated Adobe e-books with the Read-
        Aloud function.  They were checked out over the Web and downloaded.  Nearly all
        of the volunteers preferred their own screen reader to the built in Microsoft speech
        synthesizers.  Some titles are not enabled for read-aloud by the DRM.  Adobe's e-
        book reader was not initially easy to use and readers wanted better training and
        documentation.  The volunteers would prefer to use the Adobe books on the various
        commercial talking-book players.  Adobe needs a better speech engine for readers
        who do not have their own screen reader.

        The Mid-Illinois Digital Talking Book Project: 150 volunteers are testing a variety of
        mainstream digital audio players and digital talking-book players with different types
        of content. The experiment is ongoing but Bell discussed preliminary results from
        testing various players.  Several libraries share a collection and a set of Otis players
        (small mp3 player not designed for visually disabled people).  Users love the
        portability and size but dislike the controls and lack of variable speed control.  The
        new Nouveau, a flash-memory device for mp3, is the premier player now.  One
        problem is that none of digital players play Windows Media Audio (WMA), but
        Overdrive and Netlibrary are looking at that.  People are requesting that Bookshare
        enable WMA and other formats.  Some commercial players are acceptable, but NLS
        patrons prefer features on devices designed for visually impaired people and the
        ability to handle multiple file types (text, audio, audible mp3, etc.)

        The Unabridged Project:  Four state talking-book libraries will share a digital
        audiobook collection on the Web. The content is formatted for WMA and can be
        played on the computer or device that plays WMA.

        The purpose of these projects is to make people aware of what else is out there.  They
        are letting people try Bookshare by being an institutional member, a new account
        type.  The plan is to buy books in bulk and download them but they have to buy and
        download for a specific customer. So if someone wants a book, we download it in
        various formats.  That has resulted in people joining Bookshare because of books and
        formats available.  A trial was done with Adobe e-book reader. People prefer human
        voice, but are excited nonetheless. Overdrive has a system so we can download with
        a library number.  The read-aloud function was tested, but not all books are enabled
        for read-aloud.  But for those that are, the patron can use the book with their own
        synthetic speech software.   There is a steep learning curve, but they liked the books.
        Bookcourier and Bookport are also creating excitement.

        During the experiments, use of the iVocalize Talking Communities software to
        conduct online orientations was successful.  The sessions are recorded and available
        to volunteers unable to attend the original presentations.   Tip sheets on the players
        and various content sources have also been posted on the Web.

        Responding to questions from the group, Bell reported that most participants are
        elderly, but that age did not make a difference. Interest in technology and new players
        seemed to be more important than age.  Adobe is somewhat accessible, but not easy.
        The software takes some learning. One of the readers did a tip sheet that helped
        people.  They are hoping Adobe licenses a better text to voice speech.  They have not
        tried MS e-book reader. Users dislike Microsoft SAM.  Overdrive books are human
        audio, commercially narrated.  They now have 800 to 1,000 titles. They are getting
        demand from mainstream libraries as well.  All books are unabridged.  Demand is for
        unabridged books.  Technical support does take time.

        3:45 -  4:30        Graphic audio: access to entertainment media

        Jamie Cutting, president of Potomac Talking Book Services, introduced members of
        his staff who discussed their new product line called Graphic Audio.  The new
        product line consists of unabridged recordings of adventure and science fiction
        published by Harlequin Entertainment, with related Web content such as
        downloadable objects, games, ring tones, and the cover art available as screen savers.
        This approach to recording is seen as an entertainment experience more than a
        straightforward book experience.  It revives the spirit of the golden age of radio:
        dramatic readings, multiple voices, music, and extensive use of sound effects.

        The product will be available on compact disc, but Potomac plans on going to
        Internet distribution as soon as possible.  They would be downloaded in 600MB
        sections, with usually about ten sections to a book.  They use the WMA format. They
        thought the product could readily be adapted to the DTB format.

        While blind individuals are not being specifically targeted, they are seen as a
        potential audience.  Potomac Talking Books is interested in the group's reaction and
        how the product might be received by and promoted to visually impaired individuals.
        Would there be interest in the blind community for products like these?  Distributers
        will sell them for $14.99 on CD, cassette, or as downloadable WMA files.  It was
        suggested that this is analogous to descriptive videos, and they sell.  There is a niche
        within the blind community, but they are used to free books, so it may be harder to
        sell.  The Destroyer series is on Bookshare, so there is some experience.  There are
        some blind operated web sites in Canada with such material in various forms. So
        there is an interest.  Given the price range and the length of product, it is a good
        value.

        The librarians in the group said there might be interest in purchasing this product,
        especially for younger readers both by libraries and by individuals.  Lori Bell said she
        would be interested in making this available through a project as there was a lot of
        interest in old time radio.  A promotional piece directed at librarians might be useful.

        Friday, September 24

        Kurt Cylke began the session by distributing a New York Times article on flash
        memory.  He also mentioned that the Plextor proposal on streaming and download of
        DTBs was received.  NLS may or may not work with Plextor, but we will have this
        capability by 2008.

        9:00 - 10:30   Network library role in Web delivery

        Steve Prine led the discussion.  He noted that NLS has a proposal for distribution
        using streaming audio.  NLS will have a complete program by 2008, but we hope to
        have more than a pilot long before 2008 for students and early adopters.  NLS will
        also have Web distribution.  NLS wants one site that is a portal for all books.  The
        question is: what is the network's role in this, especially in the area of technical
        support?  So far network involvement in Web-Braille is not high. They do not
        provide much in the way of user support, other than answering basic questions about
        passwords, etc. Part of the reason is that there is no consistency in the level of
        knowledge at the network level.  NLS is looking for guidance on this issue.

        There was a suggestion that the ALA standards be revised to include technical
        support.  For several reasons, staff in network libraries can only be expected to do
        very basic technical support.  With just a handful of users, a library could not justify
        having a position for technical support.  It would be different if forty percent of
        patrons were downloading books.  There is also a recruiting and reasonable pay
        problem. States are not going to increase the pay scale to support this.  Network
        libraries already had a problem providing minimally qualified readers advisors. The
        ALA standards are just guidelines and the state libraries are in a fiscal crisis.

        The technical support at the Mid-Illinois Talking Book Center was considered
        relevant.   They  pay for a person to do technical support as well as doing some
        locally, but they have only one person on staff who can help.  Without such contract
        support, a library could get inundated with questions and problems.  Another
        approach is for a gradual rollout so that the patrons themselves can help each other.
        In the Mid-Illinois projects, some patrons who received the online training took on a
        mentoring role and enjoyed helping others.

        Most libraries have Web OPACs and are having to provide technical support for it,
        but many librarians do not use assistive technology and cannot support it.  Those on
        the staff who use assistive technology have to be the ones who provide support.  So
        we will need to think about getting assistive technology specialists on board.  One
        library tried to train nonuser staff to provide help with assistive technology and it was
        a disaster.  Now the librarian, an assistive technology user, does it herself.

        The idea of recruiting patrons to help others, possibly by maintaining a volunteer list
        in the state, was supported.  That might work, but people are not competent with all
        tools, most only use a few, so they may not be able to answer questions about other
        screen readers for example.  And the combinations of equipment and software are
        endless.  It is bad enough for braille.  With audio it will be exponentially more
        complicated.  And while training is important, you need a manual to get people
        started.

        With everything getting more technical, libraries have to ask what they can do,
        otherwise people will say that they are adding nothing to the process as the
        operations become more technical.  This situation is similar to the mid-nineties,
        when patrons wanted help with the basic software available using public access
        computing.  Libraries entered programs to bring up the level of knowledge with some
        success.  If the Gates Foundation committed to provide training for technical support
        (not the technical support itself), they would probably do a wonderful job.  They
        could recruit blind users as trainers.  But who would take the lead?

        Perhaps refocusing resources on technical support expertise could be seen as part of
        the move from manual workload to automated support. Since downloading takes
        away some of the expense of mailing, you are shifting costs to technical support and
        it may not be more expensive in the long run.  Mid-Illinois had relevant experience
        with a cooperative technical support program.  They brought up their own experience
        first with an electronic list and with an online chat room (iVocalize), then added
        participating libraries.  Each participating library staffs the chat room for ten hours a
        week so users can go there with their questions.

        The Massachusetts regional library is just finishing up a grant to do an online training
        course for the Keystone OPACs around the country.  It uses an iVocalize chat room.
        Anyone using the catalog uses a computer and so they should be able to use the chat
        room. The web OPAC course will be free to any patron of a KLAS library in the
        country.  There is a lot of potential for that kind of training. It minimizes staff
        involvement but creates a resource for patrons to use. She recommended creating a
        subcommittee on training, saying it could not be solved today but that we needed to
        take some responsibility.

        With the idea of a Gates Foundation support grant, a cooperatively staffed chat room
        has potential.  A cadre of staff available would make it more likely that even very
        specialized questions could be answered.  It could be like having a multilevel system
        of support with the real experts only tapped occasionally.  This could be a topic for
        the next conference.

        The group then turned to the subject of streaming audio.  It was said few people
        would want to be tied to a computer to listen to a whole book.  Would there be a way
        to bookmark where you left off reading?  Yes, that can be done.  Also, are there
        many ways to rebroadcast a stream to other players?  One user said that he was
        comfortable with streaming especially since it was only the first step.

        It was asked if libraries could promote the online books as a way to stem demand on
        the digital talking-book players?   This led to a consideration of the statistics on NLS
        readers who have computers, whose numbers of course are growing.   Libraries could
        target promotion of the online books better if they knew which patrons had
        computers.   Some OPACs would tell you who was accessing the system.  Local
        OPACs will soon have MARC records with links to electronic resources.  These
        might provide information on patrons with computers.  Another suggestion was to
        use narrators to do promotional welcomes on web sites or using streaming media for
        book samples.

        10:45 - 12:00  Open discussion

        Digital rights management (DRM)

        Michael Moodie opened the discussion by announcing that three NLS staff members
        would be attending a DAISY Consortium Group meeting on digital rights
        management the following week.  We will start work soon on a DRM system for
        NLS books.  We are looking to this group for ideas about the DRM system from the
        perspective of users and librarians, things the system should do and not do.
        Obviously, it has to protect copyrighted material from getting into the hands of
        noneligible users.  Can we get a clear statement of requirements?

        There were more questions than suggestions.  It was noted that the DRM should be
        invisible to the end users.  The group wanted to know more about the DRM system
        and how it would work.  It was explained that NLS machines will be able to decrypt
        and play NLS books.  It will be trickier to authorize after market devices, such as
        Plextor and VisuAide that have more bells and whistles, to play our books and to
        allow our machines to read locally produced network books.

        Our player will play unprotected books in standard formats such as wav or mp3.  For
        a network library to produce material to be played on an NLS machine, it could
        ignore protection altogether.  But if protection is needed, it would have to have a
        production tool that will add encryption.  Such production tools are available and can
        be bought from vendors. The tool needs to be easy for users and producers
        (volunteers, etc.)

        The system will be based in software, not hardware.  It will probably work around a
        key system with NLS having its own authorization key and network libraries doing
        their own production having another.   The players would work with both keys.

        DTB/Cassette transition

        Michael Moodie led a return to the discussion of the DTB transition. How many
        titles would be sent to network libraries initially under a hybrid distribution system?
        We thought it would be a subset of the 20,000 DTBs we expect to have in 2008.  If
        the 20/80 rule holds up, then it would be 4,000 titles and possibly seven hundred
        titles a year while we continued retrospective conversion and perhaps four hundred a
        year after that.  Titles will be sent back to the distribution centers as circulation drops
        off so a regional might only have 6,000 to 10,000 titles at any time.  The 20/80 rule is
        not fixed.  Distribution will depend on our experience with circulation.

        Will NLS convert more popular titles at first?  The collection development section is
        trying to select titles for conversion across a range of subjects and genres.  They do
        not have circulation statistics, but they have a sense of what is popular.  Will libraries
        have input into what titles are distributed?  NLS is thinking that copy allotment
        might make sense as a way to do that, with highly requested books going for mass
        distribution.  Is there a correlation between the copy allotment selections and
        subsequent circulation?  There seems to be, but there are always misses, like The Da
        Vinci Code.  But the 20/80 rule should not apply to a monthly basis.  Some months of
        copy allotment are loaded with popular books and other months have mostly low
        circulation books.

        The comment was made that the conversion to digital was similar to putting in an
        integrated library system.  Every process in the library has to be opened up,
        examined, and put together again.  It is a highly complex process.

        Discussion returned to the problem of the one- to two-year period during which, as
        was suggested the previous day, the DTBMs had not been completely distributed but
        NLS would not be producing cassettes.  That could be a significant fairness problem
        and possibly a public relations problem.  Those without DTBMs will not get new
        material.

        Looking at the three scenarios in the study, the DTBM ramp-up figures seem low.
        While there are good reasons for a low run in the first year, NLS should look at
        increasing production during the next years.  That might resolve the fairness issue as
        well as resolving some frustration over the rollout length.  NLS responded to the
        production question saying that the figures from the study were best guesses of what
        might reasonably be done.  We hope to get manufacturing done in the United States
        so we can have more quality assurance visits.  U.S. manufacturers are not geared to
        the mass production they can do in the Far East.  Doing a short run at high volume
        for a year may not be realistic, but if we are able to, we will.  We agree that a shorter
        rollout would be better for public relations and an easier transition.  Is it impossible
        to get a U.S. manufacturer to make more than 150,000 a year?  It took years of effort
        for NLS to get a second CBM manufacturer.  There is not a lot of capacity in the
        United States for this type of electronics product.  Further, we are prohibiting the
        design contractor from participating in a production contract to lower the risk of a
        vested interest.  Companies that could do more might not be interested in our
        relatively small scale production.  Can the libraries turn over their patron base in a
        few years?  Librarians thought that it was possible. Colorado sends out about 100-
        150 machines a year.  A three-year turnover is about twice the normal rate of patron
        turnover.

        How do we deal with clients who cannot get new titles because we cannot give them
        a DTBM?  Perhaps libraries should target the message if they are not certain they can
        fulfill the need generated by over-advertising the DTBM.  Planning must occur at the
        COSLA level. What they tell the legislature is told to the world.  Perhaps we could
        delay sending DTBMs to downloading patrons to reduce initial demand.  That is
        probably not possible since they would be the most interested in having a machine.
        NLS agreed to revisit the topic of ending RC production. The decision was not solid.
        A gap is unacceptable.

        Other ideas for the transition included keeping advanced lists of patrons who want
        the new machines, or putting people who request titles not available on cassette on
        such a list. Perhaps we could try getting outside funding to ramp up initial
        production, but outside funding tended to jeopardize our more routine funding and
        are not worth that risk.  Could NLS provide cassette masters for ILL distribution?

        The meeting concluded on the positive note that the digital effort was going on as
        planned.  Members commented that these were some of the most thoughtful
        discussions they have had so far.  They find the information is useful in defending
        NLS against unfair or shallow criticisms.

        The next meeting will focus on the distribution study.  The contractor will outline a
        basis for making the distribution decision at the end of phase 1.  NLS also plans on
        having more information about the distribution ratio (how many books should be
        held by regional libraries versus the distribution centers.)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager