Supporting the Accessible Format Service

at King’s College London

UKSG conference, Harrogate 10th-12th April 2017 Nadia Casagranda – King’s College London

King’s College London

• 28,900 students (2015/2016)• Mostly on-campus courses, with

some distance learning• 2,890 students with a disability

(10%) – of this 42% dyslexia, 3.5% visual/hearing impairment

Library services – a few highlights• 67.5k ejournals, 13.7k print serials, 338 databases, 457k

ebooks, 956.6k monographs• 6.2m full-text article downloads, 2.1m ebook sections

accessed• 4.2m searches on Library Search + catalogue• Course reading list material - core and recommended texts

are purchased in electronic format as well as print

Library Services support for disabled users• Assistive technology room and software• free ILLs, book fetching, extended loans• Accessible Format Service (AFS)• Frontline staff with functional responsibility for disability at

each library site

How the project came about• Cuts to disability allowance has led to pressure on library to

increase support• Objectives in LS Operational plan:

Eresources accessibility & IT resources guides (Jun 16) SensusAccess (Jan 17) Develop AFS - Subscriptions and Interlending to support

obtaining AF files; 3-month trial to assess how to best resource and scale up the service

Trial setup• 90% of AF file requests are for book chapters• Workflow discussions with AFS and Acquisition Services –

detailed breakdown of procedures and of remits viz ebooks• Early talks with BL to provide plain

PDFs alternative to BL On Demand • Proposal document written and

approved November 2016

A few key facts and figures• Trial ran from early Dec 16 to mid March 17 and treated as

high priority alongside team’s key priorities • Two S&I staff involved; this was key to keep close track,

analyse issues and assess impact• 55 AF requests handled (70% in Dec) and range of publishers

contacted. Owning item is prerequisite for requesting files• Most work done via email. Stats log tracked turnaround and

staff time, publisher patterns, and was useful working tool

Challenges• Staff time intensive - half day each day in Dec, at team peak

time for key services and work• Learning curve due to number of request methods, publisher

requirements, AF file issues• Unpredictable demand and added times if course tutor did

not use MyReadingList service• User needs assessment and interaction stayed with AFS –

form introduced later in trial to ensure consistency in info provided

Outcomes• High level of support for AFS in Dec/Jan had a substantial

impact on S&I key priorities and core services• AFS was able to handle higher volume of initial user queries;

It reduced training and decision-making required by SLAs• Collaborative experience highly rated as a key positive:

played to the teams’ different strengths, shared purpose. In line with our Quality Service standard and “one library, one service” ethos

Recommendations (draft)• Seasonal Aug/Sept and late Nov/Dec peaks coincide for both

teams – additional temporary support required, to be used as shared resource, to adequately resource and enable scaling up of the AFS service• S&I can support AFS at quieter times; develop expertise in

team by involving more staff• AFS to involve Partnership & Liaison and Acquisition Services

more in disability discussions re: advocacy of MyReadingList

Wider context reflections • Publishers more aware – discuss as part of functionality

enhancements, advocate signing up to RNIB Bookshare• Reduce effort duplication through community collaboration:

Central registry of publishers’ contacts Standardise forms, use institution code?

• Is there a role for book suppliers• Searching and navigating to resources is equally important –

consider as part of discovery tool and LMS reviews, and at tenders for new systems

Thank you

Nadia Casagranda

Library Services

King’s College London

nadia.casagranda@kcl.ac.uk