As for using Ruby, I'm only guessing here, but I think you might get better results from it today because you know more about how to scan well now. There is a way to manage settings and get some good results with it. In fact, if we had some interest in it, we could put together a class and a web page article for older technology users if they want to learn how to get the most from their software. In truth, I suspect that the number of volunteers using technology from the early nineties is pretty small. I think it's more likely that we'd see people using Openbook 5 or later or Kurzweil 7 or later. We can definitely help those folks if they're having trouble. I don't want to lock out people who scan with older technology just for the sake of doing it. My concern is about quality and readability. I don't care how it's done or who does it. Insisting that we keep our quality standards low to allow people with very old technology to keep submitting books is sort of like someone showing up at a party with a bag of eight-track tapes, expecting for the host to play some cool hits from them. Can you picture the response from the host? For those of you born after 1978 or so, eight-track tapes were often muffled in sound, had to pause and change tracks right in the middle of a song, and haven't been issued since the late 70s. So with all of the other audio technology available, it's unlikely that a party host would turn off his CDs or music played from an online service to play an eight-track tape, even if he did have a player somewhere.
Monica Willyard Cindy Ray wrote:
Yeah, but didn't Jamie say that the "fair" isn't up there anymore? I haven't looked. So it would have to be "good", and I don't think "good" is "good" enough unless there is a higher standard for it than what I'e seen.