Co‐ordinating Alternative Format Title Selection: Final Report to Share the Vision and the Library and Information Commission by CPI Ltd

Citation

Srivastava, S.D. (2002), "Co‐ordinating Alternative Format Title Selection: Final Report to Share the Vision and the Library and Information Commission by CPI Ltd", Collection Building, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 186-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/cb.2002.21.4.186.4

This report documents a study by the UK’s Library and Information Commission investigating the way producers of alternative format for the visually impaired population (i.e. large print books, books‐on‐tape, etc.) decide what titles to produce and the current extent of co‐ordination among these producers. The research also examines the public library level of resources to serve the visually impaired and how these libraries determine what to buy. Based on the results of the study, the Commission lists its various recommendations for the social welfare of the visually impaired.

The scope of the study is “to examine how the alternative format market is structured, how its production and distribution channels operate and what its visually impaired users require of it”. The project methodology used consultations that included interviews and meetings, and literature and Web research. The sectors examined were local support groups, individuals and groups all over the UK to determine need; voluntary sector organizations that are involved in production and supply of this medium and establish their methods and policies on production; publishers of the medium to evaluate their objectives and programs; and public library services to learn about their access and service issues. There was also a separate analysis of one publisher, Holt Jackson, to determine how much of the standard print material sold to public libraries was then offered in alternative format as well.

Any librarian involved in serving the visually impaired should have an interest in this report. It offers an important view of what materials are actually produced for the visually impaired and what public libraries need to do to provide better services. The recommendations and conclusions may not be directly relevant outside the UK because of different local government policies, but the report does focus on the need for the producers of alternative formats to stop duplication and begin reviewing their lists to provide more for the visually impaired. It is a good resource for public and/or special libraries that already provide existing services for the visually impaired or are planning to service this group.