[bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?




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: