The Creation of an RNIB Centre for the Migration, Origination, Archiving and Production of Alternative Format Files
Process - The Producer
3.1 Any product which is to be migrated from digital data or originated in digital data must be allocated to a multi media producer; this should include all conversion, template creation and application, 'real' audio outputs and analogue outputs including braille, modified print and diagrams. This rule should be observed where a small file is only required in one format. There are arguments in favour of encouraging producers to specialise in certain categories of production, e.g. fine art coffee table books, science web sites, but there are counter arguments, concerning work flexibility and job satisfaction, which would support generalists; whichever course is adopted this should be deliberate and not accidental. Whatever the conclusion, a proper distinction should be made between a generalist producer's knowledge of what can be done and the specialist’s ability to do it.
3.2 In the case of 'real' audio, the producer should schedule this and determine whether the recording should be conducted simultaneously with the creation of a voice-in text file or whether the final edited audio should be used to generate a voice-in text file. He/she should also investigate whether the creation of 'real audio' can be a joint venture with a commercial producer or whether it will be solely an RNIB product. Only in exceptional cases should a 'temporary' audio file be delivered to a user with the completion taking place subsequently so that the final product accords with RNIB's archiving and publishing standards. The user may, for example, not require a whole title or the footnotes and the index. Conversely, with a document likely to change over time, such as an encyclopaedia article subject to constant revision, RNIB's standards may not require the whole document to be created.
3.3 All text files, regardless of their imported format, should be rendered in a common standard. Currently this would be XML or a variant (Maths xml etc) but this is only a contemporary phenomenon. (See 4.3 below on migration tools). File importation and transformation (migration) is RNIB's largest potential growth area in the provision of digital information. Many of our customers:
- Possess legacy ICT systems
- Find standard internet information inaccessible
- Cannot narrow a search to a manageable piece of output data.
In terms of the ratio between processing and quantity output this is by far the most productive option for RNIB and its customers.
3.4 Output should then be generated through a set of publicly advertised templates or, in exceptional circumstances, through the creation of a new template. Examples of templates might include:
- UK Braille Grade One, Grade Two, capitalised/uncapitalised, UEBC
- Print in a variety of fonts and sizes
- Files for a braille embosser or refreshable braille display
- Files for speech synthesisers
- MP3 and other multimedia formats.
3.5 Descriptive material in addition to the imported file should be:
- supplied from credible and acknowledged sources (e.g. an art gallery catalogue, newspaper archive, encyclopaedia, the author's own resources)
or
- supplied by a professional describer working to publicly established guidelines which clearly state whether the description has been supplied for congenitally or adventitiously blind clients.
Descriptive material that is created should be given its own record by the producer in consultation with the librarian.
3.6 Where possible, diagrams and graphics should be supplied from existing or created digital sources. Diagrams should be catalogued as client-specific material which may require alteration.
3.7 Even if current technology dictates that diagrams must be supplied through manual production in analogue format, the record of the diagram should be stored digitally.
3.8 The requirement for diagrams should be considered openly and not confined to tactile products; equally, additional description should not be largely confined to audio products. There is no reason why a 'talking book' should not be supplied with diagrams nor any reason why descriptions of graphics should not be included in braille books; these should be producer decisions.
3.9 The quality of initial output files for users should reflect the agreement made with them; further refinement may be required so that products can meet RNIB archiving and publishing standards. Whatever the case, a digital, archived file should not be considered to be a final but only a provisional product. The permissible error rate for different initial products should be contained in a transparent, public document[1]. Current proof reading budgets should be allocated to providing users with RNIB vouchers for logging and forwarding errors in files for products with higher permitted error rates. Only products with low error rates should be proof read in-house but, then, these are likely to be products required for study or employment where payment is being made by an institution or organisation.
3.10 A producer may sub contract processes on the basis of the standard agreed with the user (whether the user is an individual or the budget holder for RNIB's equivalence or classics publishing policies) and may only change the requirement in consultation with the user.
3.11 The following are some additional notes on production:
a) Producers need access to all forms of origination, migration, archiving and digital output on one, highly integrated site which is sited with other mainstream producers. Theoretically, these processes can be dispersed, using broad band connectivity to remote servers but the cost and volume of storage are falling so rapidly that the additional complexity is not justified
b) RNIB has been somewhat slow to realise the potential of volunteer special interest group originators and editors who might supply special services from politics to wine tasting, steam trains to health information. this would work best if potential producers worked within templates covering formats and volume.
c) Printing, embossing and duplicating may be outsourced; if it is not, RNIB will need very different production plant
d) The proposed system cannot be sustained without the introduction of flexible working up to 7/24
e) Further work needs to be undertaken on the balance between Just In Time (JIT) and Just In Case (JIC) production models but almost all work will be the former, for a variety of reasons including storage, document provisionality and variety of hard copy requirements (different kinds of braille, modified print)
[1] See Carey, Kevin: A Method for the Measurement of Error Rate in Braille Transcription, BJVI 15.2, May 1997 pp59-61.