[Athen] Literacy software

[Heidi Scher]

HI David,

It was great to see you at AHG last week. We may have talked about this in
the past. For students who need accessible course materials, we previously
provided DAISY. But so many students were confused about all the files
and/or felt using DAISY was too complex a process. Even our students who
are blind have not wanted DAISY. Typically our students prefer
well-constructed Word files. By this I mean that they contain properly
styled headers which provide navigation. During conversion, we remove all
the "eye candy". The content has also been streamlined so that there are no
sidebars or multiple columns. All content is included, it's just very
linear. The students are typically using the Mac's Text-to-Speech or
Central Access Reader (CAR) on the PC. (Now that CAR for Mac is working
again, I'll be notifying our Mac users. Many of them are disappointed when
they find out that the Mac doesn't provide color options.)  We do have a
some students who like the text-based PDFs, but often they will copy/paste
the text into CAR. In order to get content out the door quickly, we often
will send text-based PDFs and then follow up with Word files when they are
ready. I think some of the students just like getting the PDFs because they
are quick. Seems they don't mind the copy/paste process into CAR. Like you,
I've not done any research on it, but these are my observations. And, of
course, this doesn't include discussion of the additional study/writing
features in RWG or Kurzweil.

Take care!

Heidi

+++++++++++++++
Heidi Scher, M.S., CRC
Associate Director - Assistive Technology --- Center for Educational Access
University of Arkansas --- 209 ARKU --- Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.575.3104 ph --- 479.575.7445 fax --- 479.575.3646 tdd
+++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++
Heidi Scher, M.S., CRC
Associate Director
Center for Educational Access
University of Arkansas
ARKU 209
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479.575.3104
479.575.7445 fax
479.575.3646 tdd
+++++++++++++++

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Nast, Joseph M <Joseph.M.Nast at lonestar.edu

> wrote:



> Greetings,

>

>

>

> I agree with David that effective literacy help solutions depend on the

> individual and their current contextual needs. Many of my students

> generally prefer R&WG to Kurzweil 3000 for reading. However, some who have

> more profound difficulties with writing find Kurzweil fits their needs

> better when taking writing-assignment-heavy courses.

>

>

>

> FYI here's a link to a comparison chart; it's a little dated, but it gives

> you a nice "bird's eye view" feature comparison of Kurzweil, R&WG,

> ClaroRead and WYNN:

>

>

>

> http://www.spectronics.com.au/downloads/faqs/Literacy-

> Support-Software-Comparison-Chart.pdf

>

>

>

> Fortunately, we have the luxury of employing both systems at Lone Star

> College, but it'd be a hard call if I had to choose one or the other. If

> pressed, I would probably go with R&WG, simply because:

>

>

>

> - I can use the Managed version in our assessment center instead of

> providing a human reader, and

>

> - the fact that new users find it easier to pick up quickly.

>

>

>

> However, I'd definitely miss Kurzweil's more extensive writing help

> features like draft and outline templates, as well as its versatile

> mind-mapping options.

>

>

>

> Let me know if you have any questions. Hope it helps!

>

>

>

>

>

> Joseph M. Nast <joseph.m.nast at lonestar.edu>

>

> *Assistive Technology Lab Coordinator*

>

> office phone: 281.290.3207

>

> office room number: CASA 109f

>

> *Lone Star College Cy Fair <http://cyfair.lonestar.edu/>*

>

> *Counseling, Career, and Disability Services

> <http://www.lonestar.edu/counseling-services.htm>*

>

>

>

> *The information in this e-mail is legally privileged and confidential

> information intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization

> named above.*

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> *From:* athen-list [mailto:athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu] *On

> Behalf Of *Schwarte, David M.

> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2016 5:03 PM

> *To:* Access Technology Higher Education Network <

> athen-list at u.washington.edu>

> *Subject:* Re: [Athen] Literacy software

>

>

>

> Hello,

>

>

>

> Until recently, we used both RWG and K3000.  We are now using RWG and a

> DAISy reader.  I was fortunate to have student staff on both sides of this

> question a few years ago.  I could really try to get an idea of why there

> was a difference of opinion.  Students who are more easily distractible

> seem to prefer a closed environment, such as Kurzweil 3000.  Everything the

> student uses in Kurzweil 3000 has exactly the same interface.  Other

> students seem to prefer Read & Write Gold, since they can read text without

> moving it or opening it in another program.  My observations are far from

> being scientific, but since we had the DAISy option for our students who

> have visual issues, I decided to actually talk with new e-text users,

> instead of just telling them what they should use.  The students who are

> most concerned about distractions, complex formatting, lots of colors etc.,

> seem to do better with the DAISy Reader with a more simple interface.  I

> always leave the final choice up to the student.  Students who I thought

> would do better with the DAISy reader, but decided to use Read & Write

> gold, usually come back to discuss their options later.  I should mention

> that I am not part of a DSS office and I don’t have access to any

> information about a student’s disability diagnosis.  Some students who tell

> me they have ADD or ADHD still do better with Read & Write Gold.  I usually

> listen for comments like “I really hate books with lots of sidebars and

> multi-column text.”

>

>

>

> I think of this similarly to the early days of text-to-speech systems,

> where they were all designed for people who had visual impairments.  Some

> students who had other types of disabilities felt programs like Kurzweil

> 3000 and WYNN were great steps forward.  I tried to make my life more

> simple by finding a compromise program that would work for everyone.  I

> eventually decided I needed to support two programs.  I think I am in the

> same boat again.  Instead of the difference being a basic diagnosis, the

> dividing line between the two types of e-text readers will need to be based

> more on the specific user.

>

>

>

> David Schwarte

>

>

>

>

>

> David Schwarte

>

> Assistive Technology Specialist

>

> 128 Memorial Mall Dr. Rm. 111

>

> West Lafayette, IN 47907

>

> Phone:  765-494-4387

>

> E-mail:  Schwarte at purdue.edu

>

>

>

> *From:* athen-list [mailto:athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> <athen-list-bounces at mailman13.u.washington.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Carolyn

> Dorr

> *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:57 AM

> *To:* athen-list at u.washington.edu

> *Subject:* [Athen] Literacy software

>

>

>

> Colleagues,

>

> (Sorry for cross-posting)

>

> I’m looking for comparisons of Read&Write Gold and Kurzweil 3000. If your

> institution has provided both, which is preferred? Our campus currently

> provides RWG on all lab computers and also offers it for download for

> personal computers on our campus. Our Student Disability Services reports

> that some students are struggling with RWG and prefer Kurzweil 3000 that

> they used in high school. Any guidance is appreciated!

>

> ==============================

>

> Carolyn Dorr

>

> IT Accessibility Coordinator

> Information Technology-Client Services

> University of Northern Iowa

> Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0301

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> athen-list mailing list

> athen-list at mailman13.u.washington.edu

> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/athen-list

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman12.u.washington.edu/pipermail/athen-list/attachments/20161122/e2a533f9/attachment.html>