Crowdsourcing e-book accessibility information and the impact on staff development

Abstract

For students with print impairments, e-books offer great potential to remove barriers to information. However, for various reasons, not all e-books are fully accessible. Significant variability exists between different platforms and titles. To benchmark e-book accessibility, a group of library and disability professionals across the UK higher education sector organized a crowdsourced e-book accessibility audit, using simple criteria to capture end-user experiences. The audit can act as a framework for librarians and e-book providers to discuss accessibility and effect improvements. This audit was of 275 e-books from 65 publishers across 44 platforms, resulting in an interactive spreadsheet on the project website and individual feedback reports for each platform. Most of the volunteer auditors had little accessibility expertise so a byproduct of the process was training to introduce key accessibility concepts and support for those using the audit tool. This paper explores the process, including key findings from a follow-up questionnaire for testers. The results indicate increased awareness of e-book accessibility and empathy for disabled learners and an appetite for further training, in particular using e-books with screen reading and text-to-speech software. The study suggests crowdsourced research can be highly effective on multiple levels.

Defining, evaluating, and achieving accessible library resources

“…Babu and Xie (2017) and Xie et al (2015) provide concrete ideas about how to enhance metadata for digitized and born-digital objects to enhance their accessibility. Dobson and McNaught (2017) and McNaught et al (2018) offer a promising model for crowdsourcing accessibility data about academic e-book platforms, leading to a tool that could help libraries decide which providers to work with; help students decide which platform might be the best for their particular situation and context; and help suppliers support accessibility features on their platforms. Investigating information-seeking behavior among individuals with functional differences is a promising avenue for gaining a deeper understanding of how to design complex interfaces that are actually usable for everyone (Hunsucker, 2013).…”

“…While there remains a heavy focus on library websites in the accessibility literature, other types of online resources have come into question as well, including research databases (Blechner, 2015); online exhibits and collections of digitized and born-digital materials (Walker and Keenan, 2015; Xie et al , 2015; Sorrell et al , 2017; Babu and Xie, 2017); instructional objects (Oud, 2011; Wakimoto and Soules, 2011; Wray, 2013; Clossen, 2014; Clossen and Proces, 2017); archival finding aids (Southwell and Slater, 2012, 2013); e-books and e-readers (Maatta and Bonnici, 2014; Mune and Agee, 2016; Dobson and McNaught, 2017; Kahler, 2017; McNaught et al , 2018); digital talking books (Lundh and Johnson, 2015); live instruction sessions (Pionke, 2017a); and the widely-used Springshare platform LibGuides (Pionke and Manson, 2018). While many of these studies are good starting points and will serve as useful references for library practitioners concerned with approaching specific technologies from an accessibility perspective, it is impossible in some cases not to notice a persistent lack of direct engagement with users with diverse abilities.…”

Evaluating e‐book platforms: Lessons from the e‐book accessibility audit

“…This article explores a crowdsourced research project designed by library and accessibility specialists (see Acknowledgements section) to draw attention to the opportunities in accessibility. The project was unique, being agile, self‐organized, and unfunded (see also Dobson & McNaught, ). Jisc and SAGE provided pro‐bono advice and guidance.…”

“…The project was unique, being agile, self-organized, and unfunded (see also Dobson & McNaught, 2017). Jisc and SAGE provided pro-bono advice and guidance.…”