[bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
- From: "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:41:42 -0400
I just can't help repeating the point that stripping page numbers
invalidates the book for any serious researcher or teacher or leader of a
discussion among blind and sighted users. What we end up with is a service
only for the casual reader. That does not mean we don't have a positive
resource, but it does limit its use, particularly in areas where employment
could result from a more controlled treatment.
I personally have submitted a large number of materials which could be used
in research. They can't be, because one would have to procure a print book
and a sighted helper to use them. To me, that is a great concern,
particularly because I, too, would like to use some of the materials on the
system and have the ability to refer to specific pages in discussions and
teaching.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:49 AM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
> Hi Scott:
> As I stated before:
>
> "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."
>
> If I don't want to read the headers, I can strip them out myself or use
an
> automated tool (k1000) to do so."
>
> Scott and Jim, nothing prevents you from stripping those headers out
> yourself before you begin reading.
> It would then leave the material in the master copy for those of us who
want
> it.
>
> In fact, I would do more touch-up work on things like headers but I don't
> because the first couple of lines of each page seem to be the strippers
> domain and therefore my efforts would be futile.
>
> The ironic thing is that we spend time on this list devising and testing
> various stripper countermeasures and bookshare is aware of this and does
not
> discourage it.
>
> Keri Carmos saw that full well with hp6.
> (It's like rolling a boulder up hill)
>
>
> Jim:
> You make some interesting points.
> As someone has previously mentioned, if the headers are too mangled, not
> even the stripper will strip them.
>
> The stripper is just plain erratic. It does different things to the
same
> header within the same book.
>
> This is clearly a case where the benefit is not worth the cost. not with
all
> this collateral damage being done.
>
> I urge you all to continue doing what your doing. (if anything try to
> validate a little more so we can cut down the step 1 page)
>
> I will drop this issue for now, but i am not forgetting about it and I
trust
> after these last couple days, Bookshare won't forget either.
>
> -- Rui
> a 2004 Volunteer of the year
> and a 2005 pain in the rear. (smile)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Blanks" <scottsjb@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:58 PM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
>
>
> > Let me speak first as a reader of Bookshare books. I mostly read
fiction,
> > with the occasional pop culture book thrown in for variety. I read
almost
> > all these books in Braille. I don't want to see repeated text such as
page
> > numbers, author/title info, etc. If people want to be able to see that
> > info, there should be an option to include or exclude this from your
book.
> > Chapters and other major headings should be included of course, and I
> > believe that problem will be addressed.
> >
> > As a validator, I can't think of a good enough reason at this point to
> > stop submitting books and validating them. That includes the stripper
> > issue. If we stop submitting or validating works, we're hurting a much
> > larger group of people than ourselves. The ultimate purpose of Bookshare
> > is to give access to books. There are still many books rated fair on the
> > website, and in the past I'm sure there were a much higher percentage of
> > "fair" books submitted to the site, but we wouldn't have wanted those
> > books held back from being available just because they were poorly
> > scanned. I don't want people deprived of books just because of a missing
> > chapter heading, or because there aren't page numbers included.
> >
> > Let's take things slow and easy folks.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:28 PM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Where are those contrarians?
> >
> >
> >> 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:
