Accessibility Concept “Executive Summary”

(For the past several months, I have been working on the development of a solution to provide accessibility in print vehicles and to promote consumer engagement. This blog post –a draft of an Executive Summary–is part of my efforts to “open source” some of my findings.)

Executive Summary

The buying power of consumers with disabilities is in the trillions of dollars, yet this continues to be a highly underserved market. Impediments to marketing and instructional content are compounded by continued reliance on print vehicles. Print is inflexible, and thus offers limited accessibility to users faced with visual impairments and language barriers.

Furthermore, print is a ”low-engagement ” medium compared to the burgeoning array of digital content options. Print cannot easily be adapted to individualized learning styles, or preferred content-consumption habits.

While devices such as the iPad are truly innovative, the accompanying chants of ”print is dead” are ludicrous. Yes, publishing and distribution models are changing, but print-based communications (think packaging) are not going anywhere soon.

The solution that is outlined in the following pages (future blogs in this case) is intended to describe a ”digital bridge” to allow better levels of access and engagement of content to all consumers. The solution outlined strives to address the needs of all consumers, not just those having disabilities. This is in accordance with the ”universal design” framework, rooted in the field of architecture.

Universal Design holds that products, information and environments should be designed according to the following principles:

  • Equitable Use: The design does not disadvantage or stigmatize any group of users.
  • Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
  • Simple, Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.
  • Perceptible Information: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
  • Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
  • Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably, and with a minimum of fatigue.
  • Size and Space for Approach & Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use, regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

If you look at these principles with print communication in mind, it is evident how inaccessible a medium that print really is.

Modern print vehicles begin their lives in digital formats (Word, Quark, InDesign, Photoshop…); however, they become static and ”outdated” the moment that ink hits paper. While the physical attributes and limitations of print cannot be changed, current technology offers a unique opportunity to provide users the means to better see (or hear) printed content.

The following pages (er blogs) outline the potential opportunities to leverage existing (and affordable) technology in order to provide consumers with convenient access to digital editions of print content. This digital content might be delivered in and array of accessible formations such as the following:

  • Enlarged text
  • Language translations
  • Audio
  • Video with subtitles

In addition to greater levels of accessibility, customers will have the opportunity to vault from a printed vehicle (such as a product label) to online content where there are unlimited opportunities:

  • To be educated, entertained and engaged by online content
  • To make express purchases via e-commerce capabilities

The goal of the envisioned solution is not to preserve print media; however, it is prudent for manufacturers, retailers and service providers to recognize that print content will be part of the marketing mix for some time to come. Furthermore, these organizations can take advantage of numerous emerging technologies that will allow them to more-effectively reach hundreds of millions of consumers.

Posted in Accessible Reality, Accessiblity, Publishing | Tagged , , | 24 Comments

If Print Is Dead, Somebody Better Tell My Aspirin Bottle

As many of you already know, I have been working for several months on service offerings in the area of content accessibility and consumer engagement. The following paragraphs provide a high-level walkthrough of my journey. In the next few days, I will be publishing  more about this endeavor in subsequent blogs.

Getting There

Some time ago, I began mulling over consumer-accessibility issues related to packaged goods. My background is in print publishing and I have worked in the creation and delivery of digital content since the mid 1990’s. I have long had a hard time accepting that so much of the content I get my hands on is so damn hard to read. (We can put a man on the moon, and watch the moon-landing on a phone 40 years later, but we can’t….)

The original problem that I set out to solve was related to my own (and millions of others’) inability to read small type on packaging. It’s increasingly difficult for me to read dosage levels, ingredients, allergens, etc on over-the-counter and prescription drug packaging. It’s impossible for others. As I started to ponder the problem, I realized how large an issue this was for millions of consumers.

So, I set out to find a solution (using pre-existing technology) that would promote accessibility among visually-challenged and also for consumers facing language barriers.

Some of my goals for the solution were that it would not place a heavy financial burden on consumers (I termed this the “Best Buy Test”), nor would the solution disrupt the content-creation, or QA processes of a packaged goods manufacturer, or retailers of such goods.

In short, I did it. At least from the conceptual level. I also realized that I could do more than address accessibility issues, but that there was potential for unprecedented opportunities for  consumer engagement and measurement of print readership. Gravy AND a bag of chips!

An Exceedingly  Large Market

In pursuit of reality checking, I tapped out a few thoughts in a blog and a few months later, I shared them with some former colleagues of mine, in Grand Rapids and Chicago. Frankly, I was stunned by the enthusiasm for some of my ideas. Also, I was astounded when I eventually realized how large the potential market of under-served consumers was.

Consider this example:

 

Image of Product Label of Store-Brand Pain Reliever

Product Label of Pain Reliever

While you may be able to read the dosage levels, ingredients, etc., think for a moment about those who may not be able to do so:

  • 78 million baby boomers (ages 46 to 64 in 2010, that is a lot of progressive lenses)
  • 40 million citizens who are over the age of 65
  • 60 million residents whose native language is something other than English
  • 12 million users are classified as having blindness or low vision

This “super-demographic” has buying power in Trillions of dollars. It doesn’t make business sense for manufactures, retailers, publishers, etc. to take these consumers for granted.

More Reality Checks

I sought further input and received additional validation from subject-matter experts in these areas:

  • Blindness and low-vision researchers
  • Content strategists and localization experts
  • Management consultants
  • Numerous key  figures from marketing and promotions sector
  • Retail strategists
  • Experts in the area of “extended packaging” (which I learned is what I was trying to  accomplish
  • Just about everybody else that I knew, or met

At the suggestion of some of the folks mentioned above, I looked into different ways to move forward with this endeavor, suggestions included venture capital and government grants. Along the journey, I made a decision that focus would be on  providing services rather than to set out to build  (and distribute, maintain) products. Services orientation allows for more flexibility in serving individual customer needs; the solution won’t be bound to specific devices, or server-side platforms.

Focus on services also affords me the flexibility to take a more open, and collaborative approach to such an endeavor. As I mentioned above, I have discussed these ideas with many, many people, and intend to keep doing so. My prime motivation for mapping out this solution was this (and only this): to provide users with the means to better  comprehend contents of package labels (or other print vehicles). This “open sourcing” of my ideas allows me to carry them with me to other contexts (for example, a full-time employer) this wouldn’t be possible with a product-development approach.

Posted in Accessibilibly/Universal Design for Learning, CM, DAM. ECM..., Publishing | Tagged , , | 19 Comments

Some Thoughts on Charter Schools

Let me  get something straight here among  my high school friends, Tweeps, and  my many other cyber-acquiaintances, I am NOT against charter schools. I think what is being missed in the conversation surrounding  “Waiting for Superman” is what a charter school really is.

Quite simply, the definition of a charter school is a publicly funded school that provides for an experimental learning environment; typically a charter school is exempt from certain state and/or local educational guidelines in the interest of flexibility and autonomy.

That’s it. The original charter schools were not designed with intent to be  managed by commercial organizations. However, private management of public schools seems to become something of the normal expectation of what charter school is.

Let me get another thing straight,  I am NOT against privately managed public schools. That is, as long as there is a clear value-add provided by the managing organization. If taxpayers are on the hook for a new school (funding both its operation, AND a corporate profit margin) then the school & charter management company should be able provide a strong value-propositon. If not, why bother with more of the same, but at  ahigher price?

The prevailing wind in education reform seems to be more charter schools (again not necessarily a bad thing). However, for the likes of Oprah, Ed Secretary Duncan, Newt Gingrich, and Al Sharpton to keep chanting the mantra “…with more charter schools.” is not going to help with ed reform if there is not consideration given to what the charter schools are offering a community.

We (parents, teachers, administrators, politicians) need to start thinking in terms of “more quality learning” That includes early childhood development, tutoring and mentoring, and  yes, more “good” schools (regardless of whom they are managed by).

When districts or states are weighing whether to outsource services to a commercial organization, it it important to consider what value an can organization provide the community? One question might be, does the commercial entity offer highly specialized services that are not readily available among the educators and administrators currently serving the community? If so, then it may be justifiable to outsource educational services to an outside organization.

Another question: does the school provide a truly innovative approach to learning? In my area there was a decision to build a charter school that will have an aviation theme. This is true innovation because it offers a chance for learners to tap into specific interests throughout their academic careers. In addition to college-prepatory coursworks there would be opportunities for focused vocational training for of number of careers (airline pilots, engineers, military…). Quite frankly, this idea would never would have gotten off the ground (pun is intended) in a traditional school district.

If an an organization can justify that it can offer specialized services, or an innovative curriculum then perhaps outsourcing to a commercial organization might indeed be the best option for a school district. If such case cannot be made, then its much harder to justify the added expense of outsourcing to an outside company. In that scenario, a better use of funds might be to restore offerings that might have been previously cut (art,  music,  pedagogical resources…) from failing schools.

Posted in Education | Tagged , | 32 Comments

My Perfect Education-Reform Solution: Do Something Different

I will get this out in the open: education reform is a big, freakin’ personal issue with me.

I realize that I will likely face criticism by some parties for my claims or comments about the state of education because I don’t work in a school system, and  have never been a teacher, principal, school board member…so be it.

True,  I didn’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I am in a graduate program, studying educational technology and special education. I am also a taxpayer in a state that had an 8-year head start on the current recession.

And I am the parent of a child who is starting first grade in a few weeks  after a tumultuous year in Kindergarten. Like I said this is a personal issue.

We Need To Do Something Different (There’s My Solution!)

In pondering education reform, I often recall a night in Chicago when I attended a lecture by the author Ken Kesey. After Kesey spoke for an hour or so, he took questions from the audience.  Most of them were inane, such as “Do you think I should move to Oregon?” and one that was something like  “In the ‘Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’ it almost seemed like (that book’s author)  Tom Wolfe was inside your head. Do think that somehow he was?”

WTF? Most of the Q & A session was ridiculous;  I contemplated leaving, but I hung around only because I wanted to get a book signed by Kesey.

The mood shifted when a man with a thick Irish accent, who admitted to being an IRA sympathizer, questioned Kesey about the conflict in Northern Ireland (this was in 1993). Kesey calmly responded: “I have ‘the’  solution to that situation. Do you want to hear it?”

He didn’t wait for an answer before he said something like this: “You, and when I say ‘you’ I mean you, and the IRA, and the governments…YOU  need to do…something different!” By that time he was no longer calm, and exclaimed “Because what YOU ALL are doing ain’t working! So YOU ALL have to do something different!”

Likewise, when I say “we” in regards to education reform, I am talking about you, and me and everybody else. That includes teachers, parents, administrators, students, school board members and taxpayers.

In the area of education reform. WE need to do something different. So there it is, my perfect education-reform solution!

Oh, do you want more specifics? Truth is, I don’t know exactly what that something different is, but it’s almost certainly not No Child Left Behind, or Race To The Top. Though the  great thing about problems in our educational system, is that every stiff who has a blog thinks he has the solution.

Well, I do have a blog, so here ya go….

We Need to Think About WHY People Learn

I have written several recent blogs on  the Universal Design for Learning. As you see in the description here UDL is an educational framework that promotes “varied and flexible ways” for :

  1. Presenting and accessing information, concepts, and ideas (the “what” of learning),
  2. Planning and executing  learning tasks (the “how” of learning), and
  3. Allowing learners to be become engaged–and stay engaged–in learning (the “why” of learning)

This post is not about UDL per se, but take a good look  at item number 3 for a moment. Now, let’s put aside our  pre-conceived notions on what is wrong with the educational system (especially all the animosity and  finger-pointing among the various factions: teachers, parents and administrators,  charter vs. traditional shools, commercial vs. public interests..) and think about learner engagement.

WE need to provide engaging learning experiences.  Learning can occur in the absence of engagement (penmanship comes to my mind), but who WANTS to learn that way?

All of the current trends in education (longer school days, piles of homework, dress codes, privatization of public schools, open content, “Edupunk” etc.) are doomed to be colossal and costly failures if we (parents, teachers, administrators, content publishers…) can’t provide new levels of engagement to our K-12 students.

Each class streaming  into school systems is more  enriched than the class that preceded it. There are so many ways for children to learn, outside of school.  Ask yourself this, are your kids (your students, or your own children) smarter than you?

They are way smarter than you. They might not be as  proficient in Algebra II, or in reading as you were, and much of what they know may not applicable to future professional contexts. Furthermore, some of their knowledge may be of an objectionable nature.

But, they know a lot.  Probably more than you did. Certainly more than I did.

If we don’t recognize the new levels of enrichment each new crop of kids, we won’t be able to teach them.

We Need to Redefine What ” ‘Good’ Education” Means

Humans have always been good at learning. However, schools have not really been all that good at teaching. I’m not trying to discount the efforts of teachers and school staff over the generations. I have had, and I know, many extraordinary teachers, administrators, coaches and other staff members. However, traditional teaching practices cannot keep pace with the brain’s capacity to learn.

Do we really believe that the mantra “everybody learns differently?” If so, why does the lecture-based, sit-still-and- be-quiet-while-I-teach model still persist in so many schools?

Did the traditional sage-on-stage approach to teaching hold your interest? Were you able to sit still?  I wasn’t.

What happenend when you checked out? You might have doodled in the margin of your paper, or passed notes, or perfected your spitball-creation techniques. Or worse. The problem was not that you didn’t WANT to learn, it’s that you WEREN’T learning, because you were hearing something you already knew, or were not engaged by the method in which the lesson was being delivered.

Are there kids who are entering school for the first time who are not intellectually enriched? Absolutely.  Do we need to provide services for those who have not had  the enrichment opportunities that others have had? Double-absolutely.

But we also need to ask whether there are there  kids coming in the education system, or in the school system that don’t WANT to learn? Probably very few.  We need to provide the means to LET the learners learn. Some are going to need extra supports that might include specialized staff or technology. Some are going to immerse themselves in a book or a web site, and require very little scaffolding. Many others will fall somewhere in the middle. They all want, and deserve, the opportunities to learn.

We Need To Back Away From The “Teachers or Technology?” Debates

I had an interesting phone conversation with a friend a few months ago. He is a noted psychology professor who spends a lot time traveling around the country addressing behavioral issues, in classrooms and entire schools. He said that in almost all of his consultations, the problems are rather simple to resolve with often-minor changes to classroom-management practices.

He also said this, “In many of these cases, there would not even be a need for a behavioral consultation if the students were properly engaged in their learning” That was especially interesting, because he and I had no prior discussion about the topic of learner engagement.

A question he has asked some of his clients, “Have you noticed that the behavior problems that you see at Kindergarten circle time (or in 6th grade math class) don’t occur in the computer lab?”

The answer is that in the computer lab, students are learning at their own pace. That is something that is absolutely not going to happen in the lecture-based,  1-to- 30, (teacher-to-students) classroom of yore.

“Teachers OR technology?” was a question that  came up during budget discussions in my home district. We need to start thinking in  terms of  “Teachers AND technology” Computers are not a replacement for teachers, but they augment the learning experience of  students who need special supports (such as enlarged text, audio,) and can deliver content and assessments at the learner’s pace. And aside from the pedagogical value, they go along way to reducing the amount of waiting in the classroom. Put up your hands if you like waiting?

We Need to Recognize That  20th Century Robber Barons Can’t Hurt Us

Schools are no longer a pipeline for workers in Mr. Pullman’s, or Mr. Carnegie’s factories. Therefore, we don’t have to embrace their ancient vision for US schools.  The vision in which a classroom’s  purpose is to condition children to sit still and to follow instructions, without question,  so that they can work on the assembly line for Mr. Pullman or Mr. Carnegie.

If students are achieving learning goals (with or without teacher support), and not disturbing others,  does it really matter if they are if they are sitting on the floor, or walking around the classroom? If the lesson’s learning goals are to demonstrate knowledge of the Battle of Bunker Hill does it matter if they acquire  that knowledge from a textbook, or from a streaming video?

In a blog earlier this year, Lisa Parisi, an elementary school teacher  made a wonderful case for a classroom that is universally designed for learning. One of her key points for  a  successful transition was this:

  • “Educators must give up that position of power to allow students the freedom to do what they need to be successful.”

It should be noted that Lisa Parisi is a teacher with over 20 years of experience and is a self-described control freak. She made the transition because it was the right thing to do so that all of her students would learn.

Pullman and Carnegie would just freakin’ hate her.

We Need To Get Over The Rose-Colored Views of  The Past

I think one of the confounding factors with the national education reform discussion is that people (long-time educators, parents, administrators, pundits, etc.) are comparing the current state of education to fond memories (probably with some distortion) of the schools they attended, or in which they taught. There are and there have always been both good and awful schools.   I don’t think most schools have ever been very adept at reaching all students.

Let me provide an example from the  “good old days” of education. Here is a repost of something that I had written on a discussion forum sometime ago:

A few weeks ago I picked up “A Life Decoded” the autobiography of Craig Venter, the scientist whose team recently announced the development of a self-replicating synthetic life form (ethical debates aside, this is a gargantuan accomplishment, with potential applications for clean water, nutrition, alternative energy…).

I had picked up the book for a couple of different reasons. First, I had the good fortune to work as an assistant to Venter for several months, when I was placed in his National Institutes of Health lab by a temp agency when I moved to DC (no jokes about ‘Mr. Smith going to Washington’ wise guys). Those were good times in my life and I enjoyed reading about the people on Venter’s core research team of the early 1990’s.

However the primary reason, that I picked up the book is that I have been writing a lot about learner engagement and I had become familiar with Venter’s personal history from media articles over the years. Here’s a brief overview of his achievements (reverse order):

1. Creation of a self-replicating synthetic life form, announced a few weeks ago.
2. Led the private sector-side effort to sequence the human genome .
3. Was founding member of the Human Genome Committee, while still with Federal government.
4. Distinguished researcher and lecturer for many years before becoming a “media celebrity.”
5. Completed his undergraduate studies and PhD in six years.
6. Turned down a swimming scholarship to Arizona State, because he didn’t think he would make it in college.
7. Serial underachiever, with chronic behavior problems throughout his elementary and high school career.

Venter refused to take tests in middle school. He almost flunked out of high school; though was able to escape with slightly more D’s than F’s his senior year. Back then (in those good old days) he was probably written off as “just a troublemaker”

In retrospect, he was the quintessential under-engaged student. This was a child that the school system was prepared to leave behind, in the halcyon days of Eisenhower and Camelot.

So what happened between Venter nearly failing out of high school and his rapid-paced college career?

  1. Escalation of troops in Vietnam during his senior year in high school
  2. Enlistment in US Navy where testing revealed this “failure” had an IQ of 143.
  3. He chose to join the Medical Corps
  4. Assignment to a Marine Base Hospital in Da Nang (where he treated hundreds of patients during the Tet Offensive).
  5. An attempt to end his own life by drowning. His change of heart occurred when he was more than a mile from the shore of China Beach.
  6. Chance meetings with key mentors, in the military (and later in junior college and at U of California) that helped to him find motivation and define a career path.

My opinion is that schools have never effectively reached the type of child that Venter was.  Oh, did I mention that education reform was a personal with me? My son like Venter, has a big IQ and like Venter’s parents, we have endured a generous share of dubious behavior at school by our child.

He’s six.

My son often checks out in the clasroom, and is usually quite  vocal about being checked out, often this has frequently escalated to highly disruptive behavior. I realize that we might be in for a long 12 years. I am prepared for that.

My son loves to learn, but unfortunately, many schools have become a place where a child’s passion for learning goes to die. However, I like to think that things will be different enough such that my son doesn’t have to go through a Vietnam-like experience to find his motivation and to capitalize on his strengths.

We Really, Really, Really Need To Examine Our Priorities

We are absolutely not  providing engagement with any of the following trends:

  1. Strict Dress Codes
  2. 10 hour school days
  3. Firing the entire staff of a school that is deemed as underperforming
  4. Privatization of public school systems
  5. Persistence of the “sit down and be quiet” model of teaching
  6. High-stakes testing in two curriculum areas, which leads to…
  7. Teaching to standardized tests (and the expense of art, music and SCIENCE)

If our goal is higher scores on standardized tests , maybe strict dress codes and longer school days might get you a little closer. However, if the goal is learning, the only way we are going to improve our lot is to provide engaging learning experiences for our students.

It’s hard for me to imagine that any of the “flavor of the month” options for education reform would have had an impact on Venter. If I’m missing something, please tell me how compelling a student like Craig  Venter to go to school until 5:30 or to wear a Polo shirt,  would have made a difference in his K-12 achievements, (or lack thereof)?

We Need To Stop Worshipping Sacred Braus

In my home school district we have often been given answers that contain the phrase “…because of budget cuts”  I really have a tough time swallowing that. I understand that money is tight, but my feeling that is only because it’s being spent in the wrong places.

It’s interesting that there have been such severe cuts at school districts around the nation, but concurrent to that there is unprecedented spending spigot opened from the federal government, stemming back to the passage of No Child Left Behind. WE spend more on education than ever. We just don’t spend it well.

I recognize that there won’t be an epiphany on the part of state and federal government or school districts that will stop wasteful spending and cause funding to flow into appropriate buckets. Any immediate change is going to require alternative sources of funding.

Funny I should mention that, an interesting point was made about school funding in Michigan a few months ago, by a local radio commentator. His point, state school funding has been shrinking for many years, while the BEER TAX hasn’t been touched since 1966…when it was lowered!

The  price of a bottle of beer is  sacred while school funding is not. That is a truly WTF-worthy realization for me.

We need to do something different.

Posted in Education, Universal Design for Learning | Tagged , , | 86 Comments