[bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
- From: Pam Quinn <quinn.family@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:01:55 -0500
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:
