[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality checks procedure -- was WRe: Re: Self-validation
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:04:27 -0500
That is correct. To clarify, A typical quote on most books printed in
North america roughly looks like two apostrophes placed close together.
In some cases the OCR screws up and replaces this double-quote symbol with
a pair of simple apostrophes. Repairing this problem simply helps to
restore the book to its original typography. The problem does not usually
affect speech, but is noticeable visually and in Braille.
Guido
Guido D. Corona
IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx.
IBM Research,
Phone: (512) 838-9735
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
talmage@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/19/2004 12:02 PM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: Quality checks procedure -- was WRe: Re:
Self-validation
Not sure, but what I think he was referring to was two apostrophes, as
opposed to a quote symbol.
At 11:35 AM 6/19/2004, you wrote:
>Guido,
>I hate to reveal the depth of my ignorance, and as no one else has asked
>the question, it must be deeper than I thought.
>What is the difference between a double single quote and a single double
>quote and how can I tell them apart and replace one with the other. My
>speech engine just says quote..
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>At 01:55 PM 6/18/04 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > I found that the following set of checks tend to generate rather
high
> >results:
> >
> >
> > sample every 20 pages.
> >
> > works best if the book uses the word 'chapter' or something else to
search
> >for.
> >
> > Definitely tedious, as I do it on each and every page.
> >
> > I merge it with the last word on the previous page if appropriate.
> >
> > These will let you find all sorts of words that were split at end of
> >lines or at end of pages and can be repaired.
> >
> > Remove manually each occurrence of these clustered nasty things
as
> >appropriate.
> >
> > Remove or repair manually as required.
> > we can copy/paste them in the find dialogue to search for them in the
> >document.
> >
> > Do each change manually as appropriate.
> >
> > in most cases that should be changed to I followed by apostrophes.
> >
> > In most cases that is part of a '11, which should become an 'll.
> >
> > Do a mass replacement of double single quote with single double quote.
> >
> > you may be deleting someone's middle initial.
> >
> >
> >
> >Hope this helps.
> >
> >Guido D. Corona
> > Austin Tx.
> > IBM Research,
> > (512) 838-9735
> > Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
> > http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <>
> >Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 06/18/2004 12:23 PM Please
> >respond to
> > bksvol-discuss
> > To bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx cc Subject [bksvol-discuss]
Re:
> >Self-validation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I completely concur!
> >
> > The harsh
> > truth is, your own errors are much easier to miss, even if you've let
that
> > I guess the urge to
> > self validate is a natural one, since people get submission credits
and
> > I have a Kate
> > Wilhelm mystery that's been up there for some time now, and I want
very
> > much to just validate the thing and get the credits and more
importantly,
> > I'm too aware of how
> > I think
> > the checks and balances that exist here--the ones that encourage
others to
> > I realize
> > others will challenge my position, suggesting that self validation is
> > absolutely the only way some of the more esoteric titles will get
> > The first book I ever validated was a Christian
> > romance--decidedly not, not, not something I would normally want to
read
> > Oddly enough, that's precisely the reason I chose
> > I figured the material would be so new and different to me that I'd be
> > That book entered the Bookshare system with a
> >"" I spent some time with
> >"" rating, and it's now part of
> > the collection.
> >
> > I don't use it as an example
> > Very nearly all of you have been at the
> > submission and validation end of this far longer than have I, and
you're
> > doubtless the ultimate experts, having forgotten more in a day than I
will
> > I just find self validation a little scary, especially in
> > light of rather strong messages lately which have called for higher
> quality
> > There's no doubt we achieve higher quality
> > validations if we don't do them ourselves.
> >
> > magazine I edit goes through no fewer than four different
> > I'm
> > not advocating for absolute rigid perfection; we are volunteers, after
> all,
> > But self validation is an excellent way to increase the
> > number of potential errors into the system.
> >
> > So that I don't totally come across here as being the loud mouthed
whiner
> > If you have a book that's been up
> > there quite a while, I'll take yours and validate it, regardless of
the
> > It's called
> >"" and it's 614 pages, so I'm
> > Obviously,
> ><>
> >
> > But in light of recent
> > messages that have called for higher standards in terms of better
quality
> > scans and better validations, redoubling our resolve to let others
> validate
> > our work is probably one good way to ensure the increased quality of
the
> > collection.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Nolan, who is dawning his fire-retardant e-mail-reading suit in
> preparation
> > for all that indignant mail from self validators :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus
> >system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456
-
> >Release Date: 6/4/04
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/04
Other related posts:
