Not using a program may sound easy enough, but sometimes the real solution
isn't that easy. The stripper is probably part of a book processing
program that performs many tasks, so taking a chunk out of it may cause a
lot of issues we can't imagine. I am married to a hardware and software
engineer and I know enough about programming to understand its
complexities. I get to hear a lot of horror stories about how changing one
little thing throws a hole system off. Of course I am just assuming that
is the case with bookshare, but I like to give them the benefit of the
doubt. If it was just a policy issue, as I also first assumed, I think
something would have been done about it immediately given the feedback we
have recently received. I don't really think any of us would like all book
processing to stop completely while Benetech raises the money for and then
gets some people to start changing the system. Then of course some
debugging would be necessary, because nothing comes out perfectly on the
first try. When they thought everything was working great, then we would
get to try the new system, and guess what... We would find some more
problems and this list again explodes with messages about how the system is
not satisfactory. ;-)
I'm not the slightest bit patient, I'm just somewhat understanding.
Sarah Van Oosterwijck Assistive Technology Trainer http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
Hi, Mike,
Actually, I'm not a big fan of committees, and the thought of creating one
raises its own set of concerns, as you wisely point out. I'm working from
the premise that the Bookshare staff is enormously busy and can't be
expected to monitor the volunteer list very closely, with its stream of
chattter about everything from the logistics of scanning software to the
inadequacies of our public libraries. Wouldn't it be more effective if we
could present the staff with a few serious concerns and suggestions
periodically, in a forum where we know we will have their full attention and
can get clear answers?
As to the stripper, we've made it clear that most of us dislike it intensely
and feel it does far more harm than good. Until a better program is
developed, why can't Bookshare stop using the current one? I STILL feel
that they're not listening, and it's profoundly frustrating.
Debbie
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Pietruk" <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 5:29 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Page numbers and headers/footers
Debbie
In addition to Peter, particularly when a volunteer co-ordinator is in
place, this list gives Benetech plenty of input from the users and
volunteers of the service.
While I realize you are a fan of formal comittees, I, as a user, much
prefer the current form of input as it is both direct and doesn't add
another layer of bureaucracy.
If Benetech itself were bureaucratic with hundreds of execs and the like,
it might make sense.
And, if there is a committee, why is that committee going to represent a
good cross section of views as committees tend either to reflect the views
of the reps themselves or their parent organizations rather than the
everyday users and volunteers.
Benetech and BookShare's major problem these days is a lack of staff to
implement its activities which is a result of the real world difficulty of
procuring sizable donations and grants.
As can be seen by this discussion of the stripper, there truly isn't much
of a consensus as to what users prefer; so a committee, if it truly
represented users, would have the same result.
About all we know is that folks don't particularly like the stripper (they
seem to agree about that); and as there is no consensus, perhaps the
optimum solution, if technologically possible, is to allow users the
ability to control stripping.
And one doesn't need a committee to figure that out nor there infrequent
meetings to formalize things which might slow down things even more.
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/2005
