Excellent idea. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guido Corona" <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:52 AM Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: synopses, quality, etc. > Assuming a redesign of the database is feasible, or even advisable, one > possible way to handle a single synopsis is to have only a long synopsis, > which is viewed in its entirety when displaying the book record. The same > long synopsis would instead be displayed in a truncated form on multiple > book listings pages. > > This would simplify the life of volunteers, while still presenting > subscribers with a highly usable and flexible interface. > > Guido > > Guido > > > Guido D. Corona > IBM Accessibility Center, Austin Tx. > IBM Research, > Phone: (512) 838-9735 > Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at: > http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html > > > > > > "Sarah Van Oosterwijck" <curiousentity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > 04/29/2004 11:08 AM > Please respond to > bksvol-discuss > > > To > <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > cc > > Subject > [bksvol-discuss] Re: synopses, quality, etc. > > > > > > > Personally, I like having the ability to see a long synopsis when it is > available, so I would be disappointed to see it illiminated. I just > wanted > to give my opinion in this unofficial and unsolicited E-mail poll. :-) > > Thank you for your answer about the textarea tag. Some html guides online > must be incorrect, which I suspected since my tests with it didn't work. > Could you tell me if there is a reason why textarea is used instead of > input > when input would allow for easy limiting of the number of characters > entered? I know there may very well be a good reason for the other tag > that > I just don't know about. I know it will allow 200 characters as a length, > because I tested that. > Thanks. > > Sarah Van Oosterwijck > curious entity at earthlink dot net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesse Fahnestock" <Jesse.F@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 9:06 AM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] synopses, quality, etc. > > > > Hey all -- sorry I've been offline for some lively conversation! I'll > try > to weigh in where necessary. As always, please feel free to email me > offline > about any of these issues. > > > > 1. Synopses: Just to be clear, while I understand the desire for > synopses, > books missing one or both forms of synopsis should not be rejected on that > basis, by volunteer or administrator. I have no problem with the urging > and > cajoling of our fellow volunteers to include them, but making them > mandatory > would simply be prohibitive and discouraging for some of our submitters, > especially those who submit in bulk. > > > > 2. The synopsis bug: There are a few cases where the synopsis being > entered will not stick: namely, books that have previously been submitted > and approved, whether or not they have since been withdrawn. In those > cases > the original synopses will stick. Validators are able to change the > synopses > on brand new submissions, however, so please don't be discouraged! The > vast > majority of your synopses are sticking. We're working on fixing it for > books > that have already existed on Bookshare.org, but it's been a tricky one. > > > > 3. Synopses from other sources: please do not copy synopses from > Amazon.com or any other source, unless it is the same copy found on the > book > jacket. That is copyrighted material, and while it is "quotable" in a news > context (like Alison's newsletter) it should not be used as the synopsis > in > our collection. > > > > 4. Site improvements: the categories issue is a long-standing one, and > one > we've spent a lot of time trying to plan for. While we do acknowledge the > need for better category management, making changes would require a large > amount of database work (not to mention likely manual recategorization), > and, if it were not a completely robust solution, might need to be done > over > and over again. The full-scale answer is to change our metadata source > entirely to something like what the library of congress uses. This change > is > probably a ways out still, but given our limited resources, it probably > makes more sense to make that change once rather than try to take > half-steps. > > > > The notification for users of rejection reasons is on the way, I'm told. > Look for it in a rejection notice coming to you soon! (grin) > > > > The short synopsis field is a textarea field, and that does not accept > the > maxlength attribute. As Sara (I think) noted, fixing the length would > require javascript, which is problematic for many users. I will float the > idea for a single synopsis -- keep in mind that this will be displayed on > the search results page, however, so it would still need to be pretty > limited. You couldn't have a 100-word synopsis there. > > > > 5. Regarding text quality: I love the fact that this group has high > standards -- I'm consistently amazed at the effort being put into the > scans > of others by our volunteers. But I'd encourage us to try to avoid > accusatory > messages when it comes to text quality. There are many mitigating factors, > some of which have already been pointed out here, and we would be wrong to > discourage anyone from submitting the books they want to share. So let's > focus on ensuring the readability and legibility of what has been > submitted, > and of course encouraging our fellow scanners with tips and techniques as > many of us already do. > > > > > > ________________________ > > > > Jesse Fahnestock > > Collection Development Coordinator, Bookshare.org > > www.bookshare.org > > > > A Project of The Benetech Initiative - Technology Serving Humanity > > 480 S. California Ave., Suite 201 > > Palo Alto, CA 94306-1609 USA > > (650)475-5440 x133 > > (650) 475-1066 FAX > > jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > www.benetech.org > > > > > >