Is the Digital Talking Book Program meeting librarian and patron expectations?

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to fill the gap in current research on the United States National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped program by surveying NLS librarians, using social informatics as the theoretical base. A 31-question survey was distributed to 111 library professionals. The questions addressed the Digital Talking Book Program, the Digital Talking Book Player, patrons, adaptive/assistive technologies, the impact of the 2008–2009 recession, and the Local Recordings program. NLS librarians and their patrons were satisfied with the player; however, both groups feel that it needs to be upgraded. Future research should survey NLS patrons and non-users of the NLS program.

Keywords

Assistive/adaptive technologies Digital Talking Book Program disabilities information and communications technologies librarians libraries National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

Introduction

The National Library Service…serves more than 800 thousand reader accounts and circulates more than 26 million books and magazines annually… Eligible patrons can receive free delivery of library materials and service comparable to those of a medium-sized public library regardless of where they live. (Library of Congress, 2014: 113; National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, 2012)

With such a large patron population, it is surprising that so few studies have built on Bonnici et al.’s (2009) survey of librarians serving the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS). Bonnici et al. (2009) queried librarians about their patrons, services, technologies, career opportunities, and their training in working with disabled populations, as well as the technology that the program was using at that time. The 2009 survey asked only a few questions about the Digital Talking Book Program, because the service had just been introduced in October 2009. Bonnici et al. (2015) conducted an updated study, which focused on these same issues; however, the 2015 survey did not specifically examine the Digital Talking Book Program. This study seeks to fill this void by surveying NLS librarians to determine if the Digital Talking Book Program is meeting the expectations of NLS librarians and patrons. In addition, librarians were queried about their opinions of NLS’s current and future technology plans, opinions were sought about the cost and use of assistive/adaptive technology, and their views about their patrons’ use of assistive/adaptive technology were also canvassed. The study asked NLS librarians for their viewpoints on how their libraries had been affected by the 2008–2009 great recession and whether the recession had had any effects on their services and programs. Finally, the study wanted to establish whether their library had a Local Recordings program and, if so, how these programs enhanced their libraries’ collection. The survey explored how these programs are influencing their libraries’ collection development policies.

This paper will study the Digital Talking Book Program using social informatics as a theoretical foundation. Social informatics researchers argue that the use of technology has social consequences that may go beyond how the technology was originally designed. Sawyer and Eschenfelder (2002) define social informatics as a field of research that focuses on the relationships between information and communications technologies (ICTs) and the social context in which ICTs exist (Sawyer and Eschenfelder, 2002: 428). Kling et al. (2005: 53) argue that: “Social Informatics is one of the appropriate methods of inquiry that should be used because of its focus on the relationships among ICTs; the people who design, use, and manage them; and the contexts in which they are used”. Sawyer and Tyworth (2006) believe that the social context pervades the entire lifecycle of an ICT, and “the social context shapes the ICT” (Sawyer and Tyworth, 2006: 52). When organizations such as NLS develop a new technology, they have to involve many stakeholders in the development and implementation process. These stakeholders (patrons, NLS staff, NLS/BPH librarians, NLS/BPH library staff, and representatives of advocacy groups for the disabled) are involved throughout the process which is influenced by political, social, economic, and technical factors (NLS, 2006: 7). These factors show that the creation, building, and deployment of an ICT have a social context and that this social context should be researched from a perspective that encompasses all of these stakeholders and all of these factors. Social informatics researchers have argued for the need to study how these factors affect the decisions that stakeholders make about the future of an ICT.

This study provides much needed data about NLS’s Digital Talking Book Program, and assistive and adaptive technology, currently not available in the literature. The survey gave librarians an opportunity to express their opinions and provide their perspectives on future technologies and services that they and their patrons want from NLS.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped is a division of the Library of Congress. It was established in 1931 by the Pratt-Smoot Act and governed by Public Law 89-522 (NLS, 2012). The Library of Congress (LC), under 2 USC 135a-135b, administers NLS, whose mission is to provide a free and accessible library service to United States citizens living in the US or living abroad, who, due to blindness, visual, physical, or other disabilities, cannot read print materials (LC, 2014). The NLS performs this mission by acquiring or producing accessible books and magazines in braille, in digital and cassette audio formats as well as machines to play the audio materials. Under Public Law 91-375, the United States Postal Service receives funding from Congress to provide free postage to ship NLS materials (NLS, 2012). The NLS/BPH libraries are funded at the national level, and the delivery of services is decided at the state level; each state administers the service to fit the needs of its population, and the service structure varies between states (Bonnici et al., 2009: 516). States with large populations and large counties may have several service points (sub-regional libraries) within their system; smaller states with concentrated populations may have one service point or a regional library providing services to the entire state (Bonnici et al., 2009: 516).

The development of the Digital Talking Book Player began in the 1990s because NLS was looking to replace cassette technology which had become obsolete by the 1990s (Cylke et al., 2007: 803). NLS, in consultation with the disabled community and other stakeholders, developed the requirements for a Digital Talking Book Player. These requirements included cost effectiveness and durability, as the new technology had to withstand continued use by library patrons (Cylke et al., 2007: 803). NLS evaluated CD-ROM, magnetic hard drive, and flash memory (NLS, 2003a). NLS found that flash memory technology coupled with Adaptive Multi-Rate Wideband Plus (AMR–WB+) compression software was the best alternative based on technological and economic factors as well as compatibility with the operational environment of the program (NLS, 2003a; NLS, 2006: 15–16). NLS argued that even though CD-ROM and magnetic hard drive were mature technologies at the time, these technologies would not be reliable enough to support a book and machine system; both books and playback machines could sustain damage due to regular use and during shipping through the mail because of the technologies’ inherent physical characteristics (NLS, 2003a). Using these technologies could result in higher media and machine failure rates, which could have led to poorer service to patrons and extra workloads for Network Libraries, from high book-replacement, machine-replacement, and machine-repair costs for both the Network Libraries and NLS (NLS, 2003a). NLS decided to build a player using flash memory technology because the player would not have any moving parts that could wear out and need to be repaired or replaced (Cylke et al., 2007: 805). A flash memory cartridge could be attached to a device using a USB connector, and the player would be able to withstand daily patron use (Cylke et al., 2007: 804–805). In 2005, NLS contracted Battelle Labs to build a prototype player. In 2009, after five years of development, the player was tested and deployed to all NLS libraries (NLS, 2012; Cylke et al., 2007: 805).

Problem statement

There have been few studies on NLS’s Digital Talking Book Program and most of the literature on the NLS program that was published before 2009 is becoming dated (Cookson et al., 2001, Cylke et al., 2007: 803, Epp, 2006: 417–423). The most recent studies asked NLS librarians very few questions about the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player (Bonnici et al., 2009, 2015). The goal of this study is close this gap by surveying NLS librarians and exploring the social context of how this technology is used by their patrons. The study explores the social context by questioning NLS librarians about their opinions of NLS’s current and future technology plans, their opinions about the price and usage of assistive/adaptive technology, and the librarians’ views on their patrons’ use of assistive/adaptive technology. The responses to the survey questions show how economic and social factors are affecting librarians’ opinions of these technologies and their views on how their libraries were and continue to be affected by the 2008–2009 recession. Their responses indicate how the recession influenced political and economic factors, and how these factors may have affected their libraries’ program and services. Finally, the survey asked NLS librarians about their libraries’ production and distribution of locally recorded materials. The study wants to understand how these locally recorded materials are affecting their libraries’ collection and collection development policies. The librarians’ responses to these questions can show how Digital Talking Book Technology is influencing their decisions to produce or not produce local materials for their patrons and how economic, management, political, and technical factors are affecting NLS/BPH libraries’ decisions to record or not record local materials for their patrons.

Kling (2000) argues that the social context of ICT development and use plays an important part in influencing the ways in which society uses information and technologies, and accordingly affects the consequences of the technology for work, organizations, and other social relationships; the social context refers to the particular conditions of social relationships (Kling, 2000: 225–226). Le Roux (2010: 41) contends that a key area of social information research delves into the social context by examining, “The technical, economic, political, psychological, aesthetical, and ethical considerations in the design and use of information technology”. The reasons for conducting, this survey were first, to investigate how these social contexts are influencing the satisfaction of NLS librarians and patrons with current NLS technologies and second, examine how these social contexts are swaying librarians’ opinions about the future technology and services that NLS should be providing to its patrons.

Literature review

Print-disabled people include those, “Who cannot effectively read print because of a physical, perceptual, developmental, cognitive, or learning disability” (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions 2012: 1; Marlin, 2014: 22).

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) agree that this is a large problem (Marlin, 2014: 21). IFLA estimates that there are 285 million blind and partially sighted people in the world, including 21 million people who live in the United States. However, this does not include millions more with print disabilities due to physical impairments or organic reading impairment, for example, dyslexia (Marlin, 2014: 21). This means that millions of people cannot read a book, magazine, or website and that less than 5% of all published materials and less than 20% of websites are accessible to the print disabled (Marlin, 2014: 22).

In the United States, public and academic libraries which are not specifically designated as libraries for the blind and physically disabled must comply with two federal statutes that oversee access to information for persons with disabilities. The first statute, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and two sections of the Act, Section 504 and Section 508 mandate that libraries in the United States must provide persons with disabilities access to their libraries’ programs, services, and technologies (Mates, 2012: 7). Section 504, “forbids excluding individuals with disabilities from services or programs” (Mates, 2012: 12) while Section 508, “requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities” (Mates, 2012: 12). For example, information providers and vendors who sell to libraries that receive federal funds have to make their products and services compliant with Section 508; in other words, any products or services sold by an information provider or vendor to a library must be made accessible to library patrons who have disabilities (Blansett, 2008: 28). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, amended in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2009 (Mates, 2012: 7), mandates that a library must provide personnel, services, assistive technology and adaptive technologies to help their patrons who have disabilities access their libraries products, services, and technology (Mates, 2012: 7–8). The agency that has been authorized by Congress to serve the print disabled is NLS. However, many people including librarians may not know about this service or many individuals in the disabled community may not want to use assistive and adaptive technology that is provided by NLS or any other organizations that serve the disabled (e.g. American Foundation for the Blind and National Federation of the Blind).

Assistive technology and adaptive technology

Gasparini and Culén (2012) conducted a case study of students using iPads as an assistive technology in an academic setting. The authors argued that people with disabilities want to use adaptive technology but do not want to be stigmatized. This is particularly true for children and younger adults (Gasparini and Culén, 2012: 28). Tablet computers such as the iPad allow people with disabilities to access information without others knowing that they are using adaptive technology and younger patrons want to use the same devices as their peers (Gasparini Culén, 2012: 33). NLS has added an Apple iOS application to iTunes that enables Apple users to download the Braille and Audio Reading Download (BARD) software free from iTunes directly onto their Apple devices (Library of Congress, 2013). Patrons can access BARD using their iPhones or iPads to download and then listen to NLS books (Library of Congress, 2013; South Dakota State Library, 2013).

The types of assistive and adaptive technology that are currently available to the disabled, for example, are computer-assistive technology, which can scan what is displayed on the computer screen and convert it to speech or Braille (Dove, 2012: 24). Apple Computers include assistive technology with all their products at no cost; for example, iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV include screen magnification and these products include a software package called Voice Over, which is screen-access technology for the visually impaired (Dove, 2012: 24). Text to speech tools, such as screen readers and screen-enlarging software can read aloud printed and encoded text from websites or electronic documents (Kenney et. al., 2016: 135). Screen readers and text to speech software have the capability to enlarge text or change screen contrast, highlight words using multiple colors for coding different ideas (Kenney et. al., 2016: 135). These tools can be accessed as features of a computer’s operating system (e.g. Voice-Over on iOS devices) or as free downloadable software (e.g. NVDA) or for purchase (e.g. JAWS, Kurzweil, and Zoom Text) (Kenney et al., 2016: 135). Optical character recognition scanning software allows the user to convert printed text to multiple formats, such as speech, large print, and audio, through an optical scanner or optical character recognition (OCR) software (Robitaille, 2010: 28). Specialized scanning systems show an exact image of a page, which is shown on a computer screen using a scanner and at the same time running OCR software to create the image shown on the screen (Robitaille, 2010: 28).

Augmentative or alternative communication refers to various methods of communication that are used as an addition to speech, including voice-output communication devices and computers with synthetic speech, which can be used by individuals with limited speech ability (Dove, 2012: 24). Telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) is an electronic method for text communication over a phone line that is used by people with hearing or speech disabilities (Dove, 2012: 25). Speech to text technology, such as Dragon Naturally Speaking voice recognition software can be used to create documents, search the Web, etc. using voice commands to tell the computer to perform these tasks (Kenney et.al., 2016: 134).

Assistive reading technology refers to technology that allows its users the ability to listen to printed materials. Examples of this technology are Digital Talking Books, which are produced using the DAISY (Digital Accessible Information System) standard and have the capability of combining human or artificial voice narration with digitized text (Lockerby et al., 2006: 477). DAISY books give the reader the ability to navigate around a recorded book by section, chapter, page phrase etc. (Nasmith et al., 2008:676). Lundh and Johnson (2015) contend that the need for assistive reading technology, such as DAISY Talking Books is large; however, research in the area is scarce (Lundh et al., 2015: 54). Lundh et al. (2015) conducted a literature review on empirical research that studied the use of DAISY Books, and the authors reviewed 12 studies that met their criteria (Lundh et al, 2015: 57). The authors focus their study around the theory of affordances which is understood as the perceived possibilities that arise due an encounter between an individual, an object, and an environment (Lundh et al., 2015: 56):

Hence, the usefulness of an object, such as a talking book, is not a consistent factor. Instead, it depends on how people perceive the affordances of the object in a particular physical, social, and historical situation. Thus, a talking book cannot be deemed to be useful per se. Its usefulness does not depend solely on its design, the user, or the social and institutional environment in which it is used, but rather on the interaction between these three…

Lundh et al. (2015) contend that these studies show that the navigation features of the DAISY talking books offer unparalleled affordances in relation to the users’ ways of reading; however, what works well for persons with visual impairments does not work as well for people who have dyslexia/reading and writing difficulties (Lundh et al., 2015: 60–61). The authors argue that some affordances features that were designed for the visually impaired users do not offer any affordances to dyslexic users and that any further development of DAISY technology need to take these issues into consideration (Lundh et al., 2015: 60).

What users want and expect from Digital Talking Books?

The NLS Patron Survey Final Report (NLS, 2003b) and Lockerby et al. (2006) discuss what persons with print disabilities need and want from Digital Talking Books. Both studies argue that users wanted a stand-alone or play-back devices that are easy to use, have navigation features that allow quick access to specific parts of a recorded book, and improved sound quality ( Lockerby et al., 2006: 477,481; NLS, 2003b: 38–40).

Lockerby et al. (2006) surveyed 56 adults from across Canada who were taught how to use both a DAISY stand-alone player (Victor Reader Pro) and how to use DAISY-playing software (Victor Reader Soft) on a computer and then the researchers tested participants’ abilities to use both the stand-alone player and the software (Lockerby et al., 2006: 478). After the participants were tested, the researchers questioned them about their expectations for the player and software before and after the testing; the respondents were asked, “If their expectations were met, exceeded, or not met” (Lockerby et al., 2006: 481). Around 65% of the respondents said that their expectations were concerning the player and 16.3% indicated that the player exceeded their expectations with 63.3% of the respondents stating that the software met their expectations; 8.2% reported that the software exceeded their expectations. However, 4.1% said that the software did not meet expectations (Lockerby et al., 2006: 481). The rest of the participants questioned did not have any expectations or did not respond to the question (Lockerby et al., 2006: 481). The study’s respondents had a positive outlook on the social, educational, and economic impact of the technology and the study identified participants’ perceptions of DAISY books as being overall useful for their educational, professional, and social lives (Lockerby et al., 2006: 481–482).

Research questions

This survey will answer the following research questions:

Are NLS librarians and their patrons satisfied with both the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player?

What are the NLS librarians’ opinions of the NLS’s current and future technology plans?

Do the NLS librarians believe that the cost of assistive and adaptive technologies is encouraging or hindering their use by patrons?

What assistive and adaptive technologies are patrons using?

Are their patrons satisfied with the current assistive and adaptive technologies that are on the market?

Have federal, state, and local budget conditions during 2008–2009 affected their libraries’ services and programs?

What is the state and status of local recordings programs?

Method

In October 2014, a web-based survey was conducted. The survey consisted of 31 questions distributed to the 111 library professionals who are listed on the NLS website as providing services and materials through the NLS/BPH program in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands (Bonnici et al., 2009: 515). Email contact information for the librarians was acquired using a database available on the NLS website at: www.loc.gov/nls/find.html (Bonnici et al., 2009: 515). A pilot or pretest survey was sent to two NLS librarians who are currently working at the Braille and Talking Book Library in Lansing, Michigan. They were asked to review the survey for its content and to see if assistive/adaptive technology could read the survey. The survey had response rate of 31%.

The demographic questions used Bonnici et al.’s (2009: 525–526) survey instrument as a model. The rest of the questions were drafted with the objective of trying to identify areas concerning the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player that were not covered in Bonnici et al.’s (2009) study. This survey’s questions were designed to examine the economic, educational, organizational, political, social, and technical aspects of this technology. The questions that specifically dealt with Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player were drafted to find out if this technology is satisfying both NLS Librarians and their patrons and to find what types of adaptive/assistive technology their patrons use. The survey asked librarians if cost is encouraging or hindering their patrons’ use of adaptive/assistive technology. The questionnaire asked librarians, about the kinds of changes they want make to the Digital Talking Book Program. This survey asked the librarians if they want the Digital Talking Book Player to be updated and what kinds of updates are needed or wanted. The questionnaire also asked librarians about how their patrons utilize the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player, for example, NLS Librarians were asked what are the most popular subjects mailed to patrons or downloaded by patrons from BARD. Librarians were asked about the effects of state and local budget cuts due to the 2009 economic downturn on their libraries’ patrons, staff, and services and the economic, organizational, and political effects of these cuts on their institutions.

Qualtrics online web survey service was used to create and then distribute the survey and to analyze the results. The questions were sent to the NLS librarians via email. The librarians were a suitable population to survey for at least two reasons. First, the NLS librarians are the best-qualified library professionals to answer the survey questions about the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped program. Second, many of these librarians have worked for NLS libraries or have worked in the field for many years, which means they have the experience and expertise to answer a survey about the NLS/BPH program (Bonnici et al., 2009: 515). The survey is included in the Appendix.

Results of the survey

Are NLS librarians and their patrons satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Program

The survey explored this subject by asking the survey participants whether they were happy with the Digital Talking Book Program. The participants responded that they were Satisfied (55.81%), Very Satisfied (32.56%), or Somewhat Satisfied (11.63%) with the Digital Talking Book Program (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Are you (NLS librarian) satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Program?

The participants were asked what changes they would like to make to the Digital Talking Book Program. The top three modifications that librarians wanted to make to the program based on their responses are discussed. First, librarians want NLS to record books faster and have more books available each year for their patrons. Librarians argue that patrons have to wait a long period to hear a newly published book after the book has been sold to the public. Second, librarians want NLS to make changes to the magazine program to make it easier to use by patrons and reduce the amount of confusion that patrons have encountered with it. Librarians have argued for better communication with patrons to reduce this confusion, for example, telling patrons that they have to return their magazine cartridges in order for new issues to be mailed. Third, librarians want more support and resources from NLS to provide patrons with training and assistance in their use of the BARD website, and think that NLS should create an on-demand service where NLS would mail patron requests directly to the patron. These two changes tied for third based on participants’ responses to those questions.

Are NLS librarians and their patrons satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Player?

The survey results showed the NLS librarians were Satisfied (44.186%), Very Satisfied (37.209%), Somewhat Satisfied (13.953%), Somewhat Dissatisfied (2.326%), or Neutral (2.326%) regarding the Digital Talking Book Player (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Are you (NLS librarian) satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Player.

The survey asked respondents questions about what single feature the librarians and their patrons liked and disliked about the Digital Talking Book Player. Librarians commented that the top three features liked were the Ease of Use, Audio Quality, and the Built in User Guide. The top three features disliked were the Battery Recharging System, the Size of the Player, and the Weight and Portability of the Player. The participants were asked to consider what features or options that they and their patrons would like to add to the Digital Talking Book Player if NLS was to update or upgrade the player. Improving the Player’s Battery Life, Reducing the Size of the Player, and Adding the Capability of Either Direct Downloading from a Computer or Downloading via Wi-Fi were the top three features requested.

Patrons’ satisfaction with assistive and adaptive technologies

The survey asked NLS librarians if their patrons were satisfied with the assistive and adaptive technologies that were offered. The results showed that librarians believed that their patrons were Satisfied (40.00%), Somewhat Satisfied (37.14%), Very Satisfied (8.57%), Neutral (8.57%), and Somewhat Dissatisfied (5.71%) with these technologies (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Based on your and your staff’s experiences and observations, are patrons satisfied with the assistive and adaptive technologies currently available?

NLS librarians provided the reasons why their patrons would buy these devices. These are listed below, from the highest to the lowest number of responses in the survey:

ease of use;

the availability of books and other materials to be played on the devices;

the availability of the devices for purchase;

the cost of the devices;

the vendors who sell the devices.

Librarians were queried about what assistive and adaptive devices and technologies their patrons use. The following devices were specified, from the most used to the least used by patrons:

tablet computers (e.g. Apple iPad, Amazon Kindle);

fully functional screen readers (e.g. Cobra, Jaws, NVDA);

screen magnifiers with screen-reading capabilities (Magic, Super Nova, and Zoom Text);

screen readers and assistive technology software for mobile devices (Braille Back, Google Talkback, Mobile Speak, and Siri);

reading machines and scanners;

voice recognition software;

optical character recognition scanning software.

Is the cost of assistive and adaptive technologies encouraging or hindering their use by patrons?

NLS librarians believed that cost was deterring their patrons’ use of assistive and adaptive technologies. When asked, “Do you feel the cost of these devices is hindering their use by patrons?” 96% of the respondents said“Yes” and 4% said “No”. What could explain this answer? Dobransky et al. (2006) argue that the cost of adaptive technology is a barrier to the increased use of computers and the Internet by people with disabilities. Adaptive technology can be expensive, and many disabled people who have a low income may not be able to purchase the technology (Dobransky et al., 2006: 317). Librarians stated the reasons why they felt strongly that the cost of adaptive and assistive technologies is hindering their use by the people with disabilities and why the cost of these devices is impeding the growth in the downloading of books from BARD. NLS librarians reported that the overall patron usage of BARD ranges from 12% to 24%. Librarians discussed in their responses the factors that are hindering their patrons’ ability to use BARD: patrons’ socio-economic status, physical, or cognition issues that impede their use of a computer.

Direct delivery or on-demand duplication service

The librarians were asked to share their perspectives about the direct delivery or on-demand duplication of books to their patrons. Views were mixed as to how these possible changes will affect their libraries’ operations or services. The NLS librarians discussed the effects of direct delivery or on-demand duplication on staff and services. The possible consequence of these new services include libraries moving away from the circulation of library materials and shifting towards patron services, with an increased focus on readers’ advisory services, technical support, and training in assistive technology for patrons. However, some librarians feared the loss of readers’ advisory staff members, who can assist patrons who, with various disabilities, may not be able to use this type of service; older patrons who want person-to-person contact or a walk-in service from their local NLS/BPH library. Eventually, this type of service could help to relieve delivery issues being caused by United States Postal Services possible reduction of mail services such as no weekend delivery of mail; librarians are worried that patrons who are not computer users may feel cut off from the NLS Digital Talking Book Program. The NLS librarians felt strongly about the ways in which these new services could be an advantage to patrons who are computer literate and about how these services would increase the need for libraries to have a technical support staff available to help patrons with their computer and Internet issues.

2008–2009 recession effects on library services and programs

These questions were asked to understand how the economic downturn influenced the fiscal, organizational, and political factors for NLS/BPH libraries. The economic conditions initiated budget cuts at the state and local levels, which effected regional and sub-regional libraries across the United States and forced a consolidation and closures of regional and sub-regional libraries, including reductions in hours, programs, staff, services, and spending (Ducrest Associates, 2010: 5–6). Two survey questions explored how the NLS librarians and their libraries weathered the 2008 and 2009 budget conditions that were caused by the recession during those years. The first question asked, “Have federal, state, and local budget issues in 2008–2009 affected your library?” The results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Did federal, state, and local budget issues in 2008–2009 affect your library?

Librarians in their replies to the Other category confirmed that the recession had effected their libraries through staff losses by attrition, less spending by library staff, reduction in outreach, reliance on fundraising, using more federal monies such as Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) grants to keep funding stable during the downturn. However, some libraries did not suffer any effects from the downturn.

The second question asked, “Alternatively, has your library’s budget recovered?” The results are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Alternatively, has your library’s budget recovered?

NLS librarians in their response to the Other category indicated that their libraries saw less money from their state governments; reductions in their budgets were continuing, although some libraries did see an increase in funding from state and local governments.

Local recordings programs

The survey contained several questions concerning the regional/sub-regional libraries’ local recordings programs. The librarians stated the following reasons why their libraries had a recordings program. They noted that local recordings add diversity to their collection by concentrating on local or regional authors, subjects, events, and locations. The local recordings programs were also considered to add a large amount of material, especially local material that NLS does not record. In addition, these programs enhance BARD by adding regional content to the database and making this content available to all BARD users. Finally, librarians see this local content as additions to their collections which enable patrons from other states to learn about their state from a local perspective.

The librarians were asked a question about the features of their local recordings programs (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Does your local recordings program have these features?

Comments from the Other category included: (1) that their library was building a studio; and (2) even though their library did have to record books, their library chose to have this program. Librarians were asked the reasons for converting their collection from the analog format to the digital format. The most prominent reasons were: (1) that libraries do not want to lose titles that were recorded in cassette format; and (2) libraries want to focus on converting convert high-demand genre titles, such as pioneer and western books. Finally, libraries wanted to convert titles that are well written and well narrated.

The librarians were asked the reasons for not converting their collections. The most common reasons were: (1) libraries did have the time or little interest in converting older titles; (2) the quality of the recordings were not good enough to warrant conversion to the digital format; and (3) libraries wanted to start over with new titles, which fit within their libraries’ collection development polices.

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to fill a gap in the literature and provide an updated portrait of NLS patrons, services, and technologies. The results of this survey have revealed the need for NLS to address several issues concerning patrons, services, and technologies, discussed further in this section.

Are NLS librarians and their patrons satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Program?

The results of this study emphasize that changes need to be made to Digital Talking Book Program. One change that both librarians and patrons want is the faster production of books; NLS says it takes three to four months to produce an average 10-hour talking book from its print version (Dutky, 2016: 6). NLS has taken steps to improve this process by entering into an agreement with five major publishers: Hachette, Macmillian, Penguin Random House, Scholastic, and Audible, Inc. to convert unabridged commerical audiobooks to the Digital Talking Book format (Dutky, 2016: 6). NLS argues that the use of commerical audiobooks enables these books to be available on BARD much closer to the time that the print version is published, which allows patrons to read the book at the same time that the book is read by their friends (Dutky 2016: 6). NLS maintains that it is more cost-effective and a time saver for the service to convert commerical audiobooks into Digital Talking Books, than for the service to record the books.(Dutky, 2016: 6).

Are NLS librarians and their patrons satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Player?

Both groups are satisfied with the machine, as discussed, however, both groups want NLS to update the player and add the upgrades noted above. However, there is another upgrade that both stakeholders want NLS to develop which is a remote control or a breath switch. The remote control or breath switch would control all the Digital Talking Book Player’s features via Bluetooth and could be used by people with physical disabilities. NLS in their planning of future models of the Digital Talking Book Player must consider the differences among the disabilities of the player’s prospective users. Lundh et al. (2015: 11) argue that the functionalities that were developed for visually impaired users do not seem to offer any functionalities for dyslexic users, and vice versa. Lundh et al. (2015: 9) propose one strategy that could be used in the development of any future models of the Digital Talking Book Player: “Identify core features for different groups and improve these features”.

What are the NLS librarians’ opinions about NLS’s current and future technology plans?

NLS librarians’ views were mixed as to NLS plans to implement the direct delivery or on-demand duplication service. The positive views, for example, argued first, that librarians could see the reduced costs in staff for libraries that have computer literate users. Second, librarians hope that more patrons would embrace BARD and download more. Third, a direct delivery or on-demand duplication service would help NLS deal with potential delivery issues created by the United States Postal Service’s proposals to reduce delivery service. Finally, librarians commented that if this type of service were implemented, the librarians will refocus their staff on providing patron services, such as reader advisory services, technical support, and troubleshooting issues with less emphasis on the circulation of library materials.

The negative comments were, first, NLS librarians fear the loss of staff because fewer materials would be circulated to patrons by their libraries. Second, the librarians are worried that many patrons across the country do not have an adequate broadband service that enables patrons to download books within a reasonable time. Third, they are also worried about their patrons who, due to their disabilities, may have problems using computers or due to social-economic reasons cannot afford a computer or a device that uses Android or iTunes applications to download books. Finally, there is a fear that this type of service would make patrons feel alienated from the NLS Digital Talking Book Program.

NLS will need to upgrade the Digital Talking Book Player for users who cannot afford to purchase assistive and adaptive products and devices like tablet computers and smartphones. In addition, NLS needs to continue the development and deployment of Android and iTunes applications for BARD for users who have the resources to purchase products that their peers have purchased and use.

Do the NLS librarians believe that the cost of assistive and adaptive technologies is encouraging or hindering their use by patrons?

Librarians in the survey overwhelming believed that the costs of these devices are hindering their use by their patrons. Librarians argued that their patrons’ economic status and the need for wireless or broadband service are hindering their use. NLS Librarians in their responses to this survey question, “NLS said in its report to Congress last year that 15% of NLS patrons use BARD or download books. Please share your opinions about this statement,” argued that these issues were impeding the growth in the use of BARD. These views make a point that social and economic factors are affecting what kinds of services and technologies NLS and NLS librarians can provide to their patrons.

What assistive and adaptive technologies are patrons using?

NLS librarians were asked questions on what assistive and adaptive technologies are used by their patrons. The librarians in their answers to these questions indicated the most used technologies were tablet computers, fully functional screen readers and screen magnifiers with screen reading capabilities. The top three reasons why patrons would buy these devices were ease of use, the availability of books, other materials to be played on the devices, and the availability of the devices for purchase.

Are their patrons satisfied with the current assistive and adaptive technologies that are on the market?

The NLS librarians believe that their patrons are satisfied with the current assistive and adaptive technologies being sold. However, their patrons want to buy products like Smartphones (e.g. Google Nexus 6, iPhone, and Samsung Galaxy S7) and Tablet Computers (e.g. Amazon Fire, iPad, and Verizon Ellipsis 8). These products do not look like the current assistive and adaptive equipment that is available, and their patrons are not self-conscious about using the devices in educational, social, or work settings (Gasparini et al., 2012: 29).

Have federal, state, and local budget conditions during 2008–2009 affected their library’s services and programs?

The economic conditions of 2008–2009 in the United States forced state and local governments to cuts their budgets and these cuts affected the fiscal, organizational, and political factors for NLS/BPH Libraries. The budget cuts led some NLS/BPH libraries to reduce hours, programs, staff, services, and spending, forced some states to close regional libraries and sub-regional libraries, and with the introduction of the Digital Talking Book Program, have forced NLS to look at alternatives to their current service model (Ducrest Associates, 2010: 23–29). One alternative service model that was introduced by NLS during the recession was the conversion of sub-regional libraries to advisory and outreach centers (AOCs). The AOCs no longer provide daily circulation of audio books to their patrons, and the AOC staff focuses on reader advisory services, outreach, and the distribution of Digital Talking Book Players (Network Service, 2011). The AOCs provide walk-in services to patrons who use the Digital Talking Books Player, and the AOCs will download books from BARD for patrons (Network Service, 2011). The regional library provides the daily book circulation to the AOCs’ patrons and oversees the maintenance and distribution of Digital Talking Book Players to patrons in the AOCs’ service area. The AOCs allow the regional libraries to maintain patron services and programs in the service area that the former sub-regional library used to serve. AOCs are an example of an alternative service model, which may be necessary due to economic, management, political, and technical factors that are forcing NLS and NLS/BPH libraries to make changes to current regional libraries’ and sub-regional libraries’ service models. However, any alternative service models must take into account the flexibilities, opportunities, and possibilities that Digital Talking Books and other future technologies can provide and at the same time NLS and NLS/BPH libraries must maintain the same level and quality in patron services.

What is the state and status of the local recordings program?

This survey has shown that there is a need for local recordings programs. NLS will produce 3750 books in the fiscal year 2016 including the addition of commercial audiobooks (Dutky, 2016: 6). This still leaves a void for books and other materials which need to be converted into alternative formats for use by print-disabled patrons. Local recordings programs fill this void by adding materials that NLS may not record. Many librarians in the survey argue that recording and then adding this material to BARD exposes these materials to a wider readership. Many of these recordings are done based on a patron’s request for a book to be recorded and these recordings help the libraries to satisfy their patrons’ reading interests. Finally, these recordings enhance and diversify their libraries collections.

Future research

A future study may explore the issues that were discussed in the comments on the open-ended questions in this survey. The issues mentioned in these remarks include the following: How will the increase in computer-literate users affect the program? Is the Digital Talking Book Program creating the need for NLS to change the current service model? Does NLS need to reexamine the certification requirements for reading disabilities, such as dyslexia/reading and writing difficulties?

This study was limited to librarians serving the NLS/BPH libraries. A possible line of inquiry is to survey the patrons of regional libraries, sub-regional libraries, and AOCs regarding whether they are satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player. The survey should ask patrons if they are happy with their service from both NLS and their local BPH library, as well as what changes they would make to the Digital Talking Book Program and the Digital Talking Book Player.

Another potential area for research is to survey non-users of the NLS program. One group of NLS library non-users who could be surveyed is people with disabilities who use public and academic libraries. Public and academic librarians could be contacted and asked to allow researchers to leave information about the survey in alternative formats at their libraries, as well as place information about the survey on their library’s website. The second group of NLS library non-users who could be surveyed are members of advocacy groups who represent people with disabilities and researchers could ask these groups to notify their members about the survey. Finally, NLS library non-users could be contacted using social network sites.

Hill (2013: 140), in a content analysis of disability and accessibility research in library and information science literature, advocates for more studies of users and their needs and wants. The author advocates for the need for more people with disabilities to participate in both qualitative and quantitative research, because researchers need to gain an understanding of the importance of the social and cultural factors of accessibility (Hill, 2013: 141). Hill argues that the participation of people with disabilities participation in research was actually higher than expected (36%), when examining the other (44%) of the research in the field: “There appears to be a disconnect between the research and the needs and wants of people with disabilities” (Hill, 2013: 141). The review notes that both within and outside the library and information sciences field or the communications field, there have been few studies surveying disabled users about the usability and accessibility of library technologies. The problem with trying to conduct these types of studies involves researchers gaining approval from their Institutional Review Boards. If researchers want to gain approval for their research, Institutional Review Boards have placed additional criteria that researchers must satisfy in order for any research involving people with disabilities to be approved. For example, researchers need to take steps to make sure they are protecting a research participant’s privacy and confidentiality.

Conclusion

The goals of this survey were, first, to investigate how social contexts are influencing the satisfaction of NLS librarians and patrons with current NLS technologies. NLS librarians and patrons are satisfied, but economic, organizational, political, social, and technical factors have influenced their satisfaction with these technologies. The second goal of this survey was to examine how these social contexts are swaying librarians’ opinions about the future technologies and services that NLS should be providing to its patrons. This study found that the librarians’ opinions about future technologies and services are influenced by their patrons’ social-economic status, and patrons’ disabilities. These social contexts are influencing the future design, development, and deployment of NLS technologies and services,

Footnotes

Appendix

If you agree to participate, please answer YES to begin the survey. If you do not agree to participate, please answer NO and you will be exited from the survey

If No Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

Questions about Digital Talking Book Players and the Digital Talking Book Program

Are you satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Program?

Are you satisfied with the Digital Talking Book Player?

What is the single major feature you like about the Digital Talking Book Player?

What is the single major feature you do not like about the Digital Talking Book Player?

If NLS was to update or upgrade the Digital Talking Book Player, what features or options you like to add?

What changes would like to add to the Digital Talking Book Program?

What age groups do you feel likes or uses the Digital Talking Book Player the most?

What age group do you feel likes or uses the Digital Talking Book Player the least?

The following questions relate to patrons using your library’s services.

How many patrons are registered with library?

How many of your library patrons are currently active?

To better understand the patrons that use your library, I would like to know more about your patrons’ background.

What do you estimate to be the age of your oldest patron?

What do you estimate to be the age of your youngest patron?

What state does your library serve?

Considering the total number of patrons that your library serves, what percent of your patrons live in: (The total for all combined communities should equal 100%. Respond using numeric characters without the % sign.)

The following questions will ask your opinions about your patrons’ use of assistive and adaptive technologies.

Based on your and your staff’s experiences and observations, are patrons satisfied with the assistive and adaptive technologies currently available?

If they are satisfied, please check the reasons why your patrons would buy these devices:

Do you feel the costs of these devices are hindering their use by patrons?

Do your patrons use any of these devices or technologies?

Based on your observations and expertise, what are the most popular subjects that are mailed to or downloaded by your patrons? Please list about three:

NLS said in its report to Congress last year that 15% of NLS patrons use BARD or download books. Please share your opinions about this statement.

NLS stated in its Fiscal 2013 and 2014 Budget Justifications to Congress that NLS wants to explore the delivery of audio books directly to the player via the Internet. Please share your perspective as to how this will affect the operations or services at your library.

The following questions will ask your opinions about how past and recent budget cuts have affected your library and its patrons.

Did the federal, state, and local budget issues during the years 2008 and 2009 affect your library?

Alternatively, has your library’s budget recovered?

Does your library have local recordings of books, etc. of local, regional, and state materials? If yes, answer the next questions.

Does your library have a local recordings program with these features? Please choose all that apply to your program:

How many books does your library record each year?

Does your library plan to convert older books recorded in an analog format? Please explain your reasons for converting or not converting these books into a digital format.

If you want to discuss the features and the reasons why your library records local materials, please explain below:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Terence Lionel Rose is currently a fifth-year doctoral student in the Communication and Information Sciences Interdisciplinary PhD Program at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He holds a Master’s in Information and Library Science and a Bachelor’s in General Studies from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He is presently a reference assistant at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Public Services, Business, Humanities, and Social Sciences Department, at the Hamilton Library.

References

Blansett

(2008) Digital discrimination. Library Journal 133(13): 26–29.

Bonnici

Maatta

Wells

(2009) US national accessibility survey: Librarians serving patrons with disabilities. New Library World 110(11/12): 512–528. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/03074800911007532 (accessed 3 October 2014).

Bonnici

. (2015) Second national accessibility survey: Librarians, patrons, and disabilities. New Library World 116(9/10): 503–516. Available at: https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/NLW-03-2015-0021 (accessed 15 December 2015).

Cookson

Rasmussen

(2001) National library service for the blind and physically handicapped: Digital plans and progress. Library Hi Tech 19(1): 15–21. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/doi/full/10.1108/07378830110384539 (accessed 3 February 2016).

Cylke

Moodie

Fistick

(2007) Serving the blind and physically handicapped in the United States of America. Library Trends 55(4): 796–808. DOI: 10.1353/lib.2007.0031.

Dobransky

Hargittai

(2006) The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society 9(3): 313–334. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691180600751298 (accessed 3 October 2014).

Dove

(2012) Advancements in assistive technology and AT laws for the disabled. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin Summer: 23–30. Available at: http://www.deltakappagamma.org/NH/Summer2012-EducationalTechnology-web.pdf#page=24 (accessed 5 October 2014).

Ducrest Associates (2010) Alternatives for Future Operations of the Books for the Blind Program Final Draft Report. Washington, DC: Ducrest Associates.

Dutky

(2016) The NLS commercial audiobook program: More books, faster–and saving money, too. NLS/BPH: News, p.6. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/nls/newsletters/news/index.html (accessed 25 April 2016).

10.

Epp

(2006) Closing the 95 percent gap: Library resource sharing for people with print disabilities. Library Trends 54(3): 411–429. Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/library_trends/v054/54.3epp.html (accessed 5 October 2014).

11.

Gasparini

Culén

(2012) Tablet PCs–An assistive technology for students with reading difficulties? In: Fifth international conference on advances in computer-human interactions (ACHI 2012), Valencia, Spain, 30 January–4 February 2012, pp. 28–34. Available at: http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=achi_2012_2_20_20083 (accessed 5 October 2014).

12.

Hill

(2013) Disability and accessibility in the library and information science literature: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research 35(2): 137–142. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0740818813000030 (accessed 12 August 2014).

13.

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (2012) IFLA Manifesto for libraries Serving Persons with a Print Disability. The Hague (Den Haag), Netherlands: IFLA, Libraries Serving Persons with Print Disabilities Section.

14.

Kenney

. (2016) Learning in the digital age: Assistive technology and electronic access. In: Meeks

Jain

(eds) The Guide to Assisting Students with Disabilities: Equal Access in Health Science and Professional Education. New York: Springer, pp. 119–140.

15.

Kling

(2000) Learning about information technologies and social change: The contribution of social informatics. The Information Society 16(3): 217–232. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01972240050133661 (accessed 10 September 2014).

16.

Kling

Rosenbaum

Sawyer

(2005) Understanding and Communicating Social Informatics. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Understanding+and+Communicating+social+informatics#1 (accessed 5 October 2014).

17.

Kling

. (2000) Learning from Social Informatics: Information and Communication Technologies in Human Contexts. Bloomington, IN: Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics.

18.

Le Roux

CJB

(2010) Social informatics vs community informatics: A brief overview of their origins and current status. Mousaion 28(1): 34–44. Available at: http://ezproxy.deakin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aci&AN=57329306&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed 25 February 2016).

19.

Library of Congress (2013) Library of Congress Fiscal 2013 Budget Justification, Submitted for Use of the Committees on Appropriations. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/portals/static/about/reports-and-budgets/pdf/fy2013.pdf (accessed 3 October 2014).

20.

Library of Congress (2014) Library of Congress Fiscal 2014 Budget Justification, Submitted for Use of the Committees on Appropriations. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/portals/static/about/reports-and-budgets/pdf/fy2013.pdf (accessed 3 October 2014).

21.

Lockerby

Breau

Zuvela

(2006) Enhancing digital access to learning materials for Canadians with perceptual disabilities: A pilot study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(8): 477–482. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22415392&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed 11 February 2016).

22.

Lundh

Johnson

(2015) The use of digital talking books by people with print disabilities: A literature review. Library Hi Tech 33(1): 54–64. Available at: https://www-scopus-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0–84924373243&partnerID=tZOtx3y1 (accessed 4 March 2015).

23.

Marlin

(2014) Promoting Access for Blind and Visually Impaired Patrons. An IFLA manifesto and its strategic importance for American libraries. American Libraries 45(11): 21–22.

24.

Mates

(2012) Information power to all patrons. Library Technology Reports 48(7): 7–14. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rm6eAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Making+Libraries+Accessible:+Adaptive+Design+and+Assistive+Technology&ots=DdFyg8U16G&sig=csZo_vhGbWthbImZslIbI0E_hwo (accessed 3 October 2014).

25.

Nasmith

Parkinson

(2008) Senior citizens embrace change and make a new technology work for them. The Electronic Library 26(5): 673–682. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02640470810910693 (accessed 25 February 2016).

26.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (2003a) Current Strategic Business Plan for the Implementation of Digital Systems, December 2003. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/nls/businessplan/2003.html (accessed 9 July 2015).

27.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (2003b) NLS Patron Survey Final Report. Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.

28.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (2006) Current Strategic Business Plan for the Implementation of Digital Systems, September 2006. Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/nls/businessplan/businessplan2006.html (accessed 4 March 2015).

29.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (2012) Library of Congress Submitted to Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate As Requested by the Committee on Appropriations, US House of Representatives In House Report 112-148 on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill, 2012 [H.R. 2551]. Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/nls/other/congressreport.html (accessed 5 November 2014).

30.

Network Service (2011) 5.7 Advisory and outreach centers. In: NLS Network Library Manual. Washington, DC: National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. Available at: http://www.tadl.org/sites/default/files/NLS%20Network%20Library%20Manual%20AOC%20Responsibilities.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).

31.

Robitaille

(2010) The Illustrated Guide to Assistive Technology and Devices: Tools and Gadgets for Living Independently. New York: Demos Medical Publishing, LLC.

32.

Sawyer

Eschenfelder

(2002) Social informatics : Perspectives, examples, and trends. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36(1): 427–465. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aris.1440360111/abstract (accessed 21 March 2015).

33.

Sawyer

Tyworth

(2006) Social informatics: Principles, theory, and practice. In: Seventh international conference: Human choice and computers (HCC7), IFIP TC 9 (eds Berleur

Nurminen

Impagliazzo

), Maribor, Slovenia, 21-23 September 2006, pp. 49–62. New York: Springer. Available at: http://dl.ifip.org/iojs/index.php/ifip/article/view/7052/0\nhttp. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-37876-3_4 (accessed 23 November 2015).

34.

South Dakota State Library (2013) Library of Congress Braille and Talking Book Program Releases Book Download App. Media Release. Available at: http://library.sd.gov/SDSL/publications/NEWS/2013/MR-LibraryofCongressBrailleTalkingBookProgramDownloadApp.aspx#.V8A-pTVu36M (accessed 24 August 2016).