Download a ZIP file containing a stand-alone XHTML copy of the Meeting Minutes for your own records or printing needs.
CAST and the Committee members wish to express their appreciation to the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) for hosting this meeting. David Dikter deserves special recognition and thanks for his assistance with making the meeting such a success. The facilities and service were excellent.
Note: Although Bonnie Jones was unable to attend, her greetings were expressed by various individuals on her behalf.
Others who welcomed the group and set the tone for the meeting included:Opening remarks highlighted the enthusiasm for the work ahead – the result of which will be to have accessible textbooks in the hands of students in a timely manner.
Skip Stahl and Chuck Hitchcock each provided an overview of the two centers. Two centers are being joined together in order to establish a functional entity for operational purposes. Among the goals will be to implement the NIMAS, assure that it remains current and comprehensive, and improve it. The Committee has five governing Principles for the National Instructional Materials Access Standard which will direct its activities and the outcomes of the two centers.
The two cooperative agreements have been awarded for five years, but there will be a three-year review. An evaluation plan will be established for both centers.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) endorsed NIMAS 1.0, but at the same time, it recognized that the standard would require ongoing maintenance to meet the needs of students.
CAST responded to OSEP's Requests for Proposals and was awarded the cooperative agreements. IDEA 2004 was signed by the President, but some of the language in the final law will need to be clarified via regulations. Some of the Committee's work, as well as that of CAST and its subcontractors, will be affected by how OSEP interprets the law and when it promulgates the regulations. Recently, CAST briefed OSEP staff, along with staff of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and this meeting gave CAST an opportunity to explain the consensus that had been reached in order to put forward NIMAS 1.0.
The work of the Digital Accessible Information SYstem (DAISY) Consortium and the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Textbooks and Instructional Materials Solutions Forum preceeds the work of the Technical Panel that helped to develop the NIMAS 1.0.
A list of those serving on the Development Committee may be found by visiting http://nimas.cast.org. An abstract describing this center was distributed to the group prior to the meeting.
With the Committee's help, the Development Center will work toward defining and expanding the populations served. Ideally, content provided will expand beyond print textbooks to include additional content that supports learning. Basic access to content will remain the primary goal, but electronic content can be enhanced to support pedagogical aims. Technological advances will be identified and monitored with an eye toward how those technological advances can benefit teachers and teaching methods.
A market-based distribution model is likely to be the most effective approach.
A list of those serving on the Technical Assistance Committee may be found by visiting http://nimas.cast.org. An abstract describing this center was distributed to the group prior to the meeting.
The Technical Assistance Center will address the implementation of the standard in reality. It will support publishers, the National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC), states, districts, schools, etc.
Universal Design is the overarching principle, and Universal Design involves various paths to access.
The Technical Assistance Center will be responsible for promoting awareness of the NIMAS, taking publishers' concerns into account (such as supporting them as they develop appropriate work flows), and creating sample content. Authorized entities will be assisted as they develop the capabilities to convert and transform NIMAS files into enhanced content such as braille or synchronized text and audio.
The help of appropriate Committee members will be required to assess the current availability of tools. Then, those interested will strategize about how to put other necessary tools in place for automating production and assuring the provision of high-quality products.
CAST will work with a few states that have different laws and have a variety of capabilities in place. CAST will be establishing the selection criteria for these few states, publishers, and other entities such as conversion houses.
Subcontracts with organizations such as AFB and the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) have been established. In addition, CAST staff is working with the DAISY Consortium and the Z39.86 Advisory Committee. It may also be helpful to work with the American Institutes of Research, including the technical assistance centers.
It was noted that this Committee has a high profile, as far as the Department of Education is concerned. As a result, the Committee can make formal requests.
Committee members introduced themselves and mentioned their hopes for the Committee's work. Visitors in attendance also introduced themselves and briefly indicated why their organizations or companies are interested in the NIMAS. Each attendee mentioned an optimal long-term future outcome.
Future outcomes were wide ranging, but increasing access to texts in a transparent, accurate, and consistent way that would promote interoperability was stressed. The goal is a uniform system to permit timely access to textbooks.
Specific scenarios were not proposed at this time.
David Dikter and Mary Ann Siller helped to frame the discussion of IDEA mandates by raising questions and providing background information. The points they raised are summarized here, and in some cases, they were explored in more detail during other discussions.
The support of AAP representatives in developing NIMAS 1.0 was acknowledged and appreciated. Because of the work of the Technical Panel, including these AAP representatives, there is now a U.S. National File Format.
With input from Mary Ann and David, Jessica Brodey discussed a PowerPoint presentation with a focus on sections 612, 613, and 674 of IDEA. This presentation contained a section enumerating "outstanding questions," and this list of questions has been reproduced in this document.
Issues that were highlighted during the group's discussion include:The law was signed on December 3, 2004, so the first deadline, related to the establishment of the NIMAC, will be on this date in 2005.
Some funds are available under Educational Media Services.
One area that will need to be monitored involves the potential ability to purchase a digital textbook directly from a publisher in, for example, a proprietary format. Will it be possible to render other specialized formats from that file set? If so, then the publisher might not be required to submit content to the NIMAC since it will already have fulfilled the goal.
There was some discussion of Web sites since, sometimes, the content on them supplements print instructional materials. Web sites are not considered to be print instructional materials at this time. Do the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 come into play? What about Internet-based textbooks?
George Kerscher gave an overview of the 
DAISY Consortium and its activities. He indicated that over 100 organizations around the world are represented.
The DAISY Consortium has a continuing commitment to the World Wide Web Consortium and open standards. It is also committed to moving the DAISY standard into the mainstream. One of the projects that the Consortium has underway is the development of a Knowledge Network to provide training in content production. A presentation on the Knowledge Network is scheduled to be held at CSUN in March of 2005.
George indicated that the ANSI/NISO Z39.86 Advisory Committee Chair passed from Michael Moodie of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) to him in September of 2004. The ANSI/NISO Committees are currently voting on the Z39.86-2005 revision, and voting is expected to close on February 11, 2005. There are some changes to DTBook in this revision, but the changes should not significantly impact NIMAS in the short-term.
The Advisory Committee now has a number of invited experts who will be assisting the core Committee members. These include representatives from VisuAide, Design Science, and CAST. Minutes from the Advisory Committee's conference calls and face-to-face meetings will be made publicly available on the ANSI-NISO Z39.86, Advisory Committee Minutes Page.
A process was approved by the Advisory Committee to extend the Z39.86 standard. See the outline of this process at http://www.daisy.org/download/download.asp?Cat=guide. Organizations will be encouraged to collaborate, develop plans for work and maintenance, establish usage guidelines, provide training materials and sample content, make necessary updates to the validator, and generally demonstrate a commitment to maintaining the extension as the core standard evolves. Extensions must be comprehensive. For example, a simple change to DTBook is not the desired approach. The DAISY Consortium will provide support services including list-management and a location on the DAISY Consortium's Web site for posting relevant documents.
There was discussion of the DAISY 3 Validator, known as ZedVal. The current software could be modified to become a NIMAS-only validator. In addition, the DAISY Multi-Format Converter was mentioned. This project will support the upgrading and validation of existing content.
A few companies, such as Microsoft and Adobe, have been approached about the possibility of a "save as" DAISY feature.
Some conversion vendors are expected to announce support for DAISY and NIMAS shortly.
The Technology group had the most participants, especially since many visitors joined the group. The group concerned with Pedagogy was the smallest since a number of the Committee members who could not attend would have been in this group.
The groups reconvened and each of the three presenters outlined the results of the discussions. CAST will maintain the background files for reference. Only highlights of the presentations are included.
1. Broaden the range of students who can legally receive NIMAS files. Consider and define best practices for curriculum design and instructional materials, building upon NIMAS to enhance functionality. It may take some effort to reach consensus on this point. Cost may be an issue. Groups to be engaged would include content providers, assistive technology vendors, parents, teachers, etc.
2. Broaden the range of materials to be provided so that core materials include more than textbooks. Workbooks, teacher editions, and assessment tools are examples that were mentioned. Math and science are content areas that must be addressed. Costs, technology, production complexities, and the need to modify the language in the regulations are challenges.
Discussion in this group was limited to the NIMAS file itself, rather than an end-product or an alternate format. Would files be distributed only through the NIMAC, and if not, how would states achieve the goals?
This group documented a significant number of issues. Some of them related to multimedia content and how it can work with the basic NIMAS files. Most of the focus was on quality control.
How much of the markup can be reliably done automatically with authoring tools?
A process for validation must be established. NIMAS files could be valid, but validity does not necessarily mean that they would be usable, i.e. valid XML tables may not be accessible. A validator needs to be in place, and the timing of human intervention should be clarified.
Evaluation issues may be market-driven. Who will fund evaluation, and which entities will do it? Will the entities that evaluate need quality control checks, too, and if so, by whom? How will NIMAS-compliance be certified?
Interoperability will need to be addressed, especially as it relates to semantics vs. presentation.
How will multiple versions of a book be handled, i.e. if there are state-specific books with only some content changes? At what stage would validation be done?
It will be important to balance quality control with the need to provide content promptly and efficiently.
The production of textbooks today focuses on printing and involves issues of presentation. NIMAS, on the other hand, requires content and structure.
How can publishers gradually shift their work flow but meet with success, in terms of XML production, relatively soon?
As the day concluded, two meetings were noted.
The AFB's 19th Annual Josephine L. Taylor Leadership Institute will be held from March 11-13 in Boston, MA. AFB and CAST will showcase a special pre-meeting on March 10 from 1:00 5:30 at the Boston Marriott Long Wharf Hotel aimed for publishers, state directors of special education, braille transcribers, assistive technology specialists, etc. The title is What is NIMAS? A New File Format for Developing Textbooks and Instructional Materials for Students K-12 with Visual or Print Disabilities. A half-day seminar will be devoted to defining, discussing and demonstrating the impact of the new provisions in IDEA surrounding the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) and the central repository or National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC) that will provide for the storage and distribution of electronic textbook source files from publishers. For more information go to http://www.afb.org or contact Mary Ann Siller at siller@afb.net
A meeting of the Open eBook Forum's Education Special Interest Group is to be held on April 14, 2005
David Rose presented an overview of the mission and the kinds of evaluation requirements that CAST anticipates addressing in order to demonstrate that the goals of the two cooperative agreements are being met. The current status regarding the provision of accessible textbooks needs to be established. Then progress must be monitored over the next several years to determine whether the provision of NIMAS content is improving the timely access to textbooks for students.
A variety of standards will be taken into account including technical, educational, and accessibility standards. Among the goals of the cooperative agreements is to make NIMAS more comprehensive with respect to the range of students with print disabilities served and the kinds of content that can be made available. As the research to maintain and develop the standard is conducted, it will be important to take various stakeholders into account including publishers, conversion houses, authorized entities, state and local education agencies, teachers, teacher education programs, and students.
Is the standard valuable to those who need it, and can it be reliably implemented? Is there a streamlined process for receiving and distributing files via the NIMAC? Can the NIMAC reliably evaluate, categorize and manipulate the NIMAS files it receives?
The goal will be to measure whether there is progress with respect to developing and distributing accessible textbooks, along the continuum of stakeholders, ranging from publishers to students. Tuck Tinsley stressed the importance of keeping students' needs in focus during the research process. As an example, it may be important to assess when books are reaching students today and to demonstrate that content is gradually becoming available more promptly. Surveying Instructional Materials Centers was one approach the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) took to collecting this kind of data.
Initially, CAST will be focusing its attention on a core group of states in various stages of readiness to take advantage of the benefits of access to NIMAS content. It could prove valuable to seek additional funding in order to conduct more comprehensive research to establish the base lines for evaluation and improvement.
Clearly, students who are blind or visually impaired will benefit from textbooks and core instructional materials being developed with NIMAS files. To some extent, some infrastructure to identify and serve these students is in place, but identifying and supporting students with learning disabilities will require some additional effort. Is the learning facilitated by electronic content considered accommodation or remediation? As mainstream teachers see the value and flexibility of electronic content, including multimedia, it is very likely that the benefits to all students, including those without print disabilities, is expected to become more obvious.
Three national surveys were initiated by the AFB Solutions Forum to look at the production of textbooks and instructional materials, how students access multimedia textbooks, and the training and availability of braille transcribers. An assessment of which states have braille bills was also included. In 2004, a national survey was conducted in all fifty states which looked at the manner in which school districts manage access to textbooks and educational materials. The National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum at CAST completed the 50 State Accessible Curriculum Policy Survey.
Sampling may be a more effective way to obtain data, rather than conducting a national survey of students.
To avoid a conflict of interest, NIMAS Centers' employees and Committee Members, in their NIMAS capacities, cannot be involved in developing, collecting, or submitting comments to the Department of Education. As a result, information provided during this meeting and included in these minutes is offered for reference in order to support those in attendance at the meeting. Nothing in this section should be construed as endorsing a particular position. The Committee, itself, cannot submit comments as a whole, but individual organizations may submit comments.
Jessica Brodey and Paul Schroeder discussed the current language in IDEA as that relates to the NIMAS. Particular issues that were raised included:http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/factsheets/copyright.html. The general consensus of the group is that NIMAS is focused on those that qualify under Chafee.Specific addresses for these meetings will be published in the Federal Register.
Oral comments should, of course, be followed up by written comments. Jessica Brodey offered to collect comments in order to submit them as a package. This approach could assist with flagging these comments for emphasis. Bill East of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education indicated a willingness to help diseminate a unified message about NIMAS since this organization will be participating in all of the hearings.
Because NIMAS will not be commented upon as much as many other issues, it is especially important that those who care about the implementation and maintenance of the standard make their views known.
Generally, the group seems to favor a market-based approach for providing NIMAS content.
The focus of discussion was section 674 of IDEA in which duties of the Access Center are described.
One approach to be considered may be a yearly subscription fee. How would a NIMAC subscription model, or other pricing models, affect the membership-fee models employed by authorized entities today?
What will be the impact if the population being served grows? Eventually, a non-compensation approach may become unacceptable to publishers. How can the charge to expand access be reconciled with publishers' needs? Market-based alternatives will need to be explored.
How will states, such as KY and CA, that require the purchase of the textbook be affected?
Ideally, publishers will not be in a position in which they "opt in" to use the NIMAC for some states, but not for others. A situation like this one would not resolve either accessibility issues or meet publishers' needs.
Will the NIMAC contain publishers' files or only the metadata related to those files? Will the NIMAC be involved in file transformation? Will schools be directed, via the NIMAC, to obtain the files from the authorized entities after the files have been upgraded/transformed from the raw NIMAS files? Which organization(s) will schools contact to obtain the files they need? If states customize raw NIMAS files for their needs, how will the resulting products be handled and by whom?
If raw NIMAS files are downloaded into school settings, how will copyright issues and content protection be addressed? Are written agreements sufficient, and who would receive these agreements? Will the states be responsible for establishing the process for identifying who is trusted to obtain and distribute content? The Committee will need to consider the complexities of the states and each of the school districts.
How will ancillary files be handled, such as workbooks and testing materials, that are important to augment the reading and understanding of the textbook content? How is the term "core materials" defined?
The general idea may be to build upon APH's existing Louis Database. It should be noted that sometimes, publishers have requested files that they have donated to Louis. Via Louis, today, publishers are able to track where their files are distributed.
The NIMAC will need to address quality control. How will electronic and human validation be handled? How will the possible conflict between quickly making the files available, while at the same time, assuring that they are of high quality, be addressed? What about human and financial resources? Will independent evaluators be required?
The NIMAC will also need to consider the collection of metadata and the development of listings of books for searching. Will the NIMAC be required to serve as an information resource, such as by tracking content available from authorized entities, too?
How will the stakeholders address the distinction between simply providing access to content vs. making that electronic content truly usable to the students who need it?
Neil Soiffer of Design Science and Stephen Baum of Kurzweil Educational Systems, Inc. both made brief comments to the group.
Neil described Design Science's work on the implementation of MathML and the development of the company's Math Player. He stressed that there are both semantic and presentational aspects to the markup for math. A second math player is available from gh. Ideally, the two companies will collaborate in order to extend the Z39.86 standard, which will, in turn, support the extension of NIMAS. Some technical issues related to implementation remain to be addressed, but there has been considerable progress. One of the most important issues, from gh's perspective, relates to pedagogical needs that arise when teaching math to students with print disabilities.
Stephen Baum mentioned the need for a mechanism to address digital rights protection. Will users be able to extract and copy content, and if so, how much? George Kerscher indicated that the DAISY Consortium is currently working on a new Digital Rights Management specification, and AAP was requested to comment on the proposed requirements.
Stephen also suggested the need for expanding the capabilities of NIMAS files, while at the same time, keeping the NIMAS neutral with respect to playback technology. There is an expected need for interactivity with the content. Assessment components may also be important.
Finally, Stephen raised the question of how images will be handled. If they are excluded, this lack may render the content useless to some groups. If images are distributed, will they only be offered to authorized entities or to end-users? Do images qualify under the Chafee Amendment as "digital text?" Will the image availability be determined by the needs of the user? Do publishers have the rights to distribute images? What will be the standards for validating their accessibility and usability? How is the large print exemption addressed if images are not made available? Images with more instructive abilities, beyond just the images included in the print textbooks, will become important to a wide range of students.
There are a few more seats open on the Committee. At the moment, students with physical disabilities, cognitive disabilities, teachers and other educators, a representative from the Association of Educational Publishers, are either not represented, or they are underrepresented. There are between six and eight seats available.
Committee members will be encouraged to nominate individuals or organization representatives, and CAST will present those nominations to the Department of Education.
The priority is to draft, present when possible, and submit comments from individual organizations. CAST will not represent the NIMAS centers in this activity.
Some Committee members specifically wanted to see AFB's and AAP's comments as examples, in order to assist in drafting their comments. There was a request for a listserv to permit the sharing of drafts.
When work plans are being developed, it will be helpful to organize them around the obvious time milestones as outlined in IDEA. Once work groups are established, designated representatives will need to develop work plans and guide each group. Establishing action steps, deliverables, timelines, and a work plan is essential.
As the meeting concluded, Committee members expressed their thanks for the meeting, reflected positively on the consensus in place to date, emphasized their willingness to offer methods to assist in commenting, etc. The general feeling was that much had been accomplished to date. The Committee affirmed its commitment to supporting the ongoing work to assure that the provisions in IDEA would be implemented effectively.
The next face-to-face meeting is proposed for September in Dallas, TX. It will be arranged by CAST with the assistance of AFB. Additional details will be forthcoming.
ACTION 1: CAST will work with the Association of American Publishers (AAP), AFB, and others who may have data to update the 50-state survey. Data from the various research projects needs to be reconciled.
ACTION 2: Develop strategies to assist the Department of Education to promote the NIMAS in its press releases and other relevant communications about IDEA.
ACTION 3: Raise awareness of the NIMAS among publishers, in states, and among parents and teachers.
ACTION 4: CAST may wish to consider developing a section of content for the DAISY Knowledge Network that would specifically address NIMAS.
ACTION 5: CAST and APH will continue discussions regarding research related to assessing whether students' needs are being met since this outcome is critical.
ACTION 6: CAST will be soliciting ideas from Jose Blackorby, representatives of the AFB Solutions Forum, perhaps the Association of Technology Assistance Programs, and others familiar with existing research in order to capitalize on their knowledge and experience. Committee members are welcome to provide input regarding research, as well as offering references for CAST's review.
ACTION 7: Develop some general draft language for the National Association of State Directors of Special Education to present in its comments.
ACTION 8: AFB will make an effort to distribute, via its Web site, some guidance and possible draft language to assist those who are interested in providing comments.
ACTION 9: CAST, APH, AFB, and others on the Committee should collaborate to articulate how the NIMAC is expected to function, develop a project plan, and identify timelines. It will be important to include an evaluation component so that APH can document and report the success of the NIMAC.
ACTION 10: Clearly identify the quality control requirements including the process for electronic and human validation. Consider using the "package file" and "checksum." These are two technical options for assuring that the NIMAS file set for content, such as a book, is complete.
ACTION 11: The issue of how images may be used and by whom should be brought to the attention of the Department of Education. This issue should be considered by those who are writing comments.
ACTION 12: For reference, CAST will develop a list of the Committee members re-categorized into the constituant groups they represent. This new version will be distributed to the current Committee.
ACTION 13: CAST plans to establish listservs to continue the work of the Committee.
ACTION 14: CAST and APH will be meeting again shortly to continue their dialogue about the establishment of the NIMAC.
ACTION 15: CAST will develop and distribute a work plan to the Committee. Then, the group will review and provide comments on that plan.
The NIMAS Development and Technical Assistance Center, supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), works with states, TA systems, disability advocates, national associations, technology experts, publishers and content conversion houses to improve the timely delivery of high quality accessible educational materials to students with disabilities.The NIMAS Center was launched on October 1, 2004.The project officer for both the Development and TA Centers is Bonnie Jones, Ed.D. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the Department of Education's position or policy.
40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3
Wakefield MA 01880-3233
Voice 781-245-2212
TTY 781 245 9320
Fax 781 245 5212