[bksvol-discuss] Re: request of submitters
- From: "Julie & Miss Mercy" <mercy421@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:01:51 -0400
Hi Emily. I don't think you're speaking out of turn here at all and in fact,
most, if not all, of the people here on this list would agree with what you're
saying here. Again most, if not all, of the people on this list do more than
the minimum requirements. Many times when discussions of this sort come up
people say they're preaching to the choir here and that's why. Most of us are
on this list to begin with because we do want to do better, we want to do more
and we want what we do to be quality work. That doesn't mean everyone who
doesn't belong to the list does less and their work isn't quality. It just
means most, if not all, of us who are here definitely agree that we do go
beyond what Bookshare says we absolutely have to.
Julie Morales
Email:
mercy421@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Live Messenger:
inlovewithchrist@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Emily Harrison
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:56 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: request of submitters
I may be out of place, but I think I'll weigh in here. My feeling as a
proofreader is, why should we only strive for the minimum requirements? Isn't
it important to do more than that which is required by Bookshare, in order to
assure the best possible reading experience for those who take advantage of
what Bookshare offers? I don't think the Bookshare requirements for proofing
(title page, copyright info) are stringent enough, and I for one am willing to
go further, to actually correct the scan errors and other issues which affect
the quality of the final product. I'm a beginner, so perhaps I'm speaking out
of line. But I just don't think it's enough to say, "That's all Bookshare
requires, so that's good enough." Most of us are willing to do better than
that, so those who think "just good enough" is sufficient are bound to both
annoy and, in their neglegence, potentially cause difficulty by leaving errors
uncorrected.
Obviously, I wouldn't consider a quick turn around from a scan and proof team
to be a "jiffy proof." I'm part of a team myself, and it's quite possible that
if we were both in the right frame of mind, we could scan, proof and submit a
book all in one day. I don't think the discussion of jiffy proofing, as it's
currently being discussed, refers to such types of proofing at all, and thus
it's sort of a moot point.
--
Emily Harrison
greeniebone@xxxxxxxxx
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3953 (20090321) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
