Hello Paul
You seem to be doing a brilliant job and getting success for visually 
impaired and blind readers - all power to your elbow!
If the technology is available for these students, why should it not also be 
available for those who are 'word blind' ie dyslexic, or those whose sight 
is not sufficiently poor to qualify as visually impaired, but nonetheless 
makes reading long texts an arduous task?

I can appreciate the publishers fears about copyright, but surely it is not 
beyond the technical wizards skills to encrypt the text or do something 
brilliantly techie to stop it being copied and/or  make it only readable by 
the named student?

Perhaps this is only a short term need, as publishers in some golden future 
may realise that including a digital version in every academic book will be 
advantageous for ALL users?!
Cheers
Judith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judith Stansfield
SEN ICT Consultant
NASEN ICT Group
http://stass.web.onyxnet.co.uk/
Farm Cottage, 24  East Road, Melsonby, Richmond DL10 5NF
01325 718139  mob 0799 0572 365
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Jarman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Update on electronic copies


> At last, something to appease my wrath!  I was determined to write last
> week and ask why Disforum was turning into a "let's bash the publisher"
> website, but I had more jobs on than David Blunkett, so didn't get
> around to it.  Coincidentally, just when the discussion was raging at
> its height, I suddenly discovered that one of my visually-impaired
> students needed a massive book on the First World War in just one week's
> time for a post-graduate seminar.  I contacted the publishers, Cassell
> (a fairly small London firm) last Monday afternoon at about 3 to explain
> what I needed and why.  Like most publishers one contacts, they had
> never come across the situation before, but what was the result of my
> call?  The entire book was with me by e-mail by 10 A.M. on Tuesday
> morning--not even 24 hours.  Back in the summer I wanted a book from
> Alan Sutton Publishers in Stroud, again, a fairly small outfit, but
> publisher of some magnificent titles.  This one was for my own research
> (totally blind myself, by the way).  I think it took the woman at Sutton
> about 48 hours to get this one to me electronically.  And this, in my
> experience, is the norm.
>
> So what am I doing right?  Is it that I'm just particularly charming or
> extremely good at my job?  Well, I'd like to think both, but I think
> that there are three key issues here.  Firstly, I'm not absolutely
> obsessed with disability legislation, and consequently don't go in with
> all guns a-blazing.  Nothing is more calculated to alienate and achieve
> completely the opposite effect than to start a dialogue with a publisher
> from the perspective of: "do you know that under the god-knows-what act
> of god-knows-when you are obliged ..."  That would certainly be enough
> to make me think that I might suddenly have accidentally lost the
> relevant electronic files, wouldn't it you?  Legislation is a fantastic
> weapon against absolute intransigence, and I've wielded it myself only a
> couple of years ago to obtain considerable compensation from an Indian
> restaurant owner who refused entry for my guide dog into his
> establishment.  In my experience however, publishers are anything but
> intransigent.  This was shown, I think, by the number of big names who
> sent reps to the conference to discuss the obtaining of e-books for the
> blind at the British Library earlier this year.  According to my
> records, I've approached 7 publishers for e-versions of their books
> since September of last year, and 6 of them have come up with the goods
> in fairly quick time.  In addition to the two small ones mentioned
> above, I've had great relations with bigger names like OUP and
> Cavendish.  By all means let's strive for some better legislation to
> back up our case with those publishers who are quite determined never to
> play ball, but, as with so many issues now it seems, can we stop making
> the DDA stand for "dismissing dialogue absolutely".
>
> Secondly, perhaps it's because I'm also a part-time academic as well as
> working in the field of disability that I am sympathetic to the
> publishers' concerns, and do everything in my power to ease those
> concerns.  I'm hopefully about to strike a contract for my own book, and
> I can tell you now that if I thought that the publisher would one day be
> spraying it around electronically in the public domain, I would be
> absolutely furious.  Being an academic work you can be sure that I'll
> get sod all financially for it anyway, without giving away free copies
> to one and all.  What I'm asking is, how much effort are you all putting
> in to explain precisely to the publisher just where this electronic copy
> is going to end up?  How much time are you investing in reassuring the
> publisher that their property--for that's what it is--is safe?  Are you
> making it fundamentally clear that if, in a year's time for example, a
> mysterious copy suddenly starts materialising on the web or something,
> you will be among the first to help with investigating whether your
> student was responsible?  Okay, this is deliberately being drastic, but
> you know what I'm getting at.  Try and keep in mind that this is
> some-one's hard work, it's not just shareware.
>
> Thirdly, how are you approaching these publishers?  I'm asking this
> because another obsession, along with legislation, is e-mail.  In my
> experience, forget it!  Pick up the phone and make personal contact.
> Even in the 21st century you might be surprised to learn that there are
> plenty of people who prefer to get a feel for the person they are
> dealing with, especially when there is nothing in it for them.  The
> other advantage of this is that you can be fairly sure that you will
> reach the individual you really need; the person who really does have
> access to the electronic files etc.  If they can't tell you who that is
> on the switchboard, persist with all departments you are put through to
> until you get the right person.  This is just old-fashioned telesales
> technique.  An airy-fairy e-mail "to whom it may concern" can easily
> (and probably will) be ignored.  More importantly even, if it does
> happen to reach the right person, unless you have written a great deal
> about why you really need this book, he/she will probably be more
> suspicious than willing to help.  Believe me, "dear sir/madam, I need
> this copy of your book electronically for a visually-impaired student",
> is almost certainly going to get you nowhere if it is addressed to a
> publisher who doesn't know anything about visually-impaired students,
> the way the education market now is, SENDA, and all other related
> issues.  It really is the equivalent of all these e-mails that one gets
> asking whether you would mind some nice individual in Zimbabwe placing
> 10 million dollars in your personal bank account.  Your request might be
> more genuine, and you've probably got your badge of approval on the
> bottom of your e-mail, but I'm not convinced that this counts for much.
> My advice then is, at the intial stage anyway, pick up the phone and
> talk to them.  Publishers don't usually have two heads, any more than
> blind people do.
>
> One thing I can almost say for certain: at sometime over the next year
> or so I am bound to come into contact with an intransigent publisher who
> just doesn't give a damn, and doesn't even want to hear what I've got to
> say.  Then I'll be tempted to put a bit of the old legal pressure on
> perhaps, just as one occasionally has to in other walks of life.  On the
> whole however, this would be so unusual in my experience, that I'm
> simply not prepared to sit quiet and see all (even most) publishers
> painted in the kind of colours that they have been on this forum of
> late.  I obtained my first ever electronic book from a publisher (Harper
> Collins) way back in 1998.  I had been given it to review for "The
> Independent", and the editor had given me a very short
> deadline--especially given that the quality of scanning in those days
> was so dreadful that one could hardly read the results anyway.  I was
> also just about to go on holiday, so was left with about four days to
> read the book, write the review and get it back to the Indy.  A call to
> Collins got me the book in the same afternoon--admittedly in Mac format,
> which was, in those days, a bit of a sod to convert, but still better
> than scanning--and I guess I've never looked back since.  It was a
> memorable moment for me because I realised that, as a blind book
> reviewer for various publications, life really was about to get a lot
> better, and so it has proved.
>
> If anyone is interested in my running a workshop on how to obtain
> e-books from publishers, let me know!!!  I have to say in advance though
> that the workshop would simply be entitled something like "common sense
> and good manners", since that's all it amounts to in essence.  "Experto
> credite", as Virgil says.
>
> Paul Jar man,
> Learning Development Officer for Students with Disabilities, 400
> Chemistry Building, Queen Mary College, University of London, Mile End
> Road, LONDON.  E1 INNS
> Tel.: +44 (0)20 7882-3237
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7882-5223
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Baxter, Chris
> Sent: 02 November 2005 09:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Update on electronic copies
>
>
> Having bemoaned how difficult it was we have had some more success with
> Pearson and other publishers, although not all books requested are
> avaible a fair few are, so I wanted to let everyone know this in
> fairness!
>
>
> Chris Baxter
> Disability Service Co-ordinator
> The Nottingham Trent University
> Burton Street
> Nottingham
> NG1 4BU
>
> 0115 8486163 voice and minicom
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.ntu.ac.uk/sss/disability/index.html
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private
> and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee,
> please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this
> case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and
> information in this email that do not relate to the official business of
> Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor
> endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps
> to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do
> advise that the recipient should check that the email and its
> attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good
> computing practice.
>
>