[bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
- From: Pam Quinn <quinn.family@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:19:59 -0500
But I thought the stripper only removed headers if they repeated, so
therefore garbled headings were left anyway. >
Pam
Original message:
>
>At the risk of being ostracized and having none of my future submissions
>validated, let me make a few comments from the point of view of a speech
>reader.
>
>Despite the excellent scans now possible with the latest ocr engines, there
>can still be a large number of mistakes in the headers. While I remove the
>headers in the books I scan, most submitters do not, and I do not think all
>validaters are as dedicated as those on this list. If the headers are not
>stripped, the reader using speech could be subjected to three hundred or
>more phrases such as 'LHC AOLDM5PICLER5'.
>While these can be removed in Kurzweil and Open Book, not all readers have
>these programs.
>
>Perhaps before removing the stripper completely some method of
>retaining page numbers and chapter headings could be found.
>I recently downloaded and read one of my submissions in Daisy format and
>all page numbers and chapter headings were there.
>Why there and not in others? I don't know, but there must be a way of
>solving the problem.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 06:28 PM 7/22/05, you wrote:
>
>>Hello:
>>
>>I would like to here from people who disagree with me.
>>Let me know why you think the current setup makes sense.
>>
>>I do not mean for people to play devil's advocate with this.
>>I'm asking if anyone seriously disagrees with the centiments expressed
>>over the last 30 hours.
>>
>>(There is a method to my madness)
>>
>>-- Rui (who is probably liked at Benetech right now as much as the plague)
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Kent Stein" <dkent5817@xxxxxxx>
>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 PM
>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Dear Charlyn and Bookshare community,
>>>
>>>I think a petition is an excellent idea. Charlyn, would you like to put it
>>>together? Rui, would you put it on the Bookshare Scans site?
>>>
>>>I also think we should select a day to make phone calls and send emails to
>>>the Bookshare staff calling on them to turn off the stripper. How about
>>>Thursday, July 28, one week after this most recent stripper discussion
>>>began.
>>>
>>>We need to take in the fact that, as Bookshare volunteers and users, we must
>>>have direct say on policy issues. Right now this list is virtually the only
>>>vehicle we have for reaching the staff, and it is clearly ineffective. The
>>>stripper issue highlights a need for a more formalized means of
>>>communication. Maybe we should develop an advisory committee which can
>>>bring concerns to the staff and have a real voice in policymaking.
>>>
>>>As blind people, most of us have grown up with the sense that we're lucky to
>>>get whatever reading matter is offered to us. We had better be appreciative
>>>and not complain. On the title page of every book from the National Library
>>>Service we read that the book has been produced for the blind and physically
>>>handicapped "with the kind permission of the publisher." That line about
>>>"the kind permission" says so much! Do sighted people need anyone's kind
>>>permission in order to read? I AM in fact extraordinarily grateful to the
>>>volunteers and others who have spent countless hours putting books into
>>>Braille and recorded formats for us, and to those who have worked to change
>>>copyright laws and make our special-format books possible! Most of us would
>>>not be literate, educated, contributing members of society without their
>>>help! But I think that our lifelong dependence upon others to provide us
>>>with books, and the constant feeling that we must be grateful and that we
>>>can't expect too much, do take a toll.
>>>
>>>Bookshare is different. Bookshare is a program which is not only FOR us,
>>>but BY us. We, the volunteers, determine what books go into the collection,
>>>and we ourselves make them available. We are not "only volunteers" who have
>>>no right to determine policy. We are the backbone of the program - a
>>>program which is created to meet our needs and those of other blind and
>>>print-disabled people. The Bookshare staff are not users of Bookshare
>>>materials. They do not live with the inaccessibility of print; they don't
>>>experience our issues from the inside. It is absolutely essential that they
>>>listen to what we have to say.
>>>
>>>Bookshare is an incredible program, and I believe in it utterly. It has the
>>>potential to narrow the print gap for us as no other program ever has
>>>before. But we need to take a stand and insist that it be the quality
>>>program we all deserve.
>>>
>>>Debbie
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:11 AM
>>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe we could put together a pteition of some sort and put a notice on
>>>>the volunteer website as well to see if we could get enough people to
>>>>sign it to send to bookshare requesting them to stop using the program.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pam Quinn
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:02 PM
>>>>To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We take pride in our submissions and I just don't think a lot of the
>>>>bookshare staff understands how angry and frustrated we are when we see
>>>>that our submissions have been mangled. And for what? I just don't get
>>>>it. Why do they insist on holding on to that useless program that nobody
>>>>wants? Seems to me if anything, dropping it would mean one less step and
>>>>less work in putting the books on the site.
>>>>
>>>>I use chapter headings for my breaking points in .mp3 files too, when
>>>>I'm lucky enough to have them.
>>>>
>>>>It might not be our decision and they might not want to listen to us,
>>>>but that would be unfortunate, because the volunteers and subscribers
>>>>have a major role in determining the future of bookshare.
>>>>
>>>>Pam
>>>>
>>>>Original message:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >I have seriously considered not submitting some books I have scanned
>>>> >just
>>>> >because I thought they would be of little use after the stripper
>>>>finished
>>>> >with them. I put a lot of work in to what I submit and it is really
>>>> >upsetting to see the final result when my original looked so nice, and
>>>>that
>>>> >is only a volunteer's view. I also am upset by the messes that I come
>>>> >accross when I am reading, even for pleasure. I use the chapter
>>>>headings
>>>> >as my MP3 creation breaking points, so if they aren't there I have a
>>>>big
>>>> >mess!
>>>> >
>>>> >I don't really like throwing fits, and I won't on this list because it
>>>> >seems to serve little purpose, but the fits are completely justified.
>>>> >
>>>> >If i submitted a book in DAISY and BRF format instead of in RTF would
>>>> >the
>>>> >normal automated processes be skipped? That is the only thing I can
>>>>think
>>>> >of to rescue books where the headers, headings, and page numbers are
>>>> >invaluable.
>>>> >
>>>> >Sarah Van Oosterwijck
>>>> >Assistive Technology Trainer http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity
>>>> >----- Original Message -----
>>>> >From: "Deborah Kent Stein" <dkent5817@xxxxxxx>
>>>> >To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> >Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:10 PM
>>>> >Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hear, hear! I agree 200%!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> We have been telling the Bookshare staff about our concerns, politely
>>>>
>>>> >> but firmly, literally for years. Despite all the talk, nothing has
>>>> >> changed. I am beginning to think we need to take stronger action. We
>>>>
>>>> >> ARE volunteers.
>>>> >> We do not have to contribute the thousands of hours we put into this
>>>> >> program. And Bookshare cannot survive without us. Do we need to say
>>>>we
>>>> >> will have to stop scanning and validating until we know that someone
>>>>out
>>>> >> there is really listening to us, and taking action? It should not
>>>>have
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> come down to threats and strikes, but many of us are at our wit's
>>>>end.
>>>> >> What
>>>> >> is it going to take to turn off the stripper and stop mangling the
>>>>books
>>>> >> we
>>>> >> work so hard to make available?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Debbie
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> >> From: "Rui" <goldwave@xxxxxxx>
>>>> >> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> >> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:16 AM
>>>> >> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] stripper and colatteral damage
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Good Afternoon:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> At the bookshare users meeting at NFB, I made it very clear to Jim
>>>> >>> (like
>>>> >> he didn't know already) the issues with the stripper and why i think
>>>> >> it should be removed.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The whole concept of the stripper bothers me, not just the fact it
>>>> >>> does
>>>> >> more than it's supposed too.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Its very reason for being agrivates me.
>>>> >>> Regular print books have headers, some have footers, that is part of
>>>>
>>>> >>> a
>>>> >> print book.
>>>> >>> If we want digital copies of print books then, take the good with
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> bad.
>>>> >>> Do not sanitize the book to make it more access technology friendly.
>>>>
>>>> >>> The
>>>> >> very fact that is accessible already does that.
>>>> >>> If i don't want to read the headers, i can strip them out myself or
>>>> >>> use
>>>> >>> my
>>>> >> own automated tool to do so.
>>>> >>> However, If by chance I do want them there, I simply do not get
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >> option with Bookshare!!!
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Words do not do justice to how much this issue ticks me off.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Bottomline, this process does not serve the community that it was
>>>> >>> designed
>>>> >> to assist.
>>>> >>> -- Rui
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > From: Mike Pietruk <pietruk@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> >>> > Date: 2005/07/21 Thu AM 11:00:39 EDT
>>>> >>> > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> >>> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > Pam
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> > agreed! It's inconsistent and unpredictable. And the problems
>>>> >>> > relative
>>>> >>> > to it have been discussed repeatedly.
>>>> >>> > The Powers-that-be are all too aware of the damage the stripper
>>>>has
>>>> >> caused
>>>> >>> > but seem to have shoved it on the back burner probably due to more
>>>>
>>>> >>> > pressing issues to deal with. It is a shame that it cannot be
>>>> >>> > dealt with; but Marissa, prior to her leaving, pretty much
>>>> >>> > outlined where it stands. So I wouldn't expect much change
>>>> >>> > regarding the stripper as any change would require some sort of
>>>> >>> > policy change plus programmer action. Conceptually, the stripper
>>>> >>> > makes sense; practically, it has been a
>>>> >> dismal
>>>> >>> > failure breading as much (or perhaps even more) than it has
>>>> >>> > repaired. It's not our decision as we are volunteers, not
>>>> >>> > decision-makers.
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>> >
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>>> >> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date:
>>>>7/19/2005
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
