[bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 10:33:43 -0500
Yes, a slight rewording of the guidelines is in order.
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
"Jill O'Connell" <jillocon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/20/2004 10:19 AM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
And this disturbs me a great deal. Perhaps originally this was important
as
they were trying to build up a library, but I hope they will now rethink
their priorities. I for one won't even read a book that is rated good
because I know it will have a lot of errors.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jackie M." <xercon@xxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
> The bookshare folks themselves discourage quality - their instructions
> appear to indicate they want quantity more than quality.
>
> - Jackie McCraw
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Wunder" <gwunder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 7:10 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
>
>
> > I agree. As a kid I tried my hand at dish washing and wanted to
> > be fast at it. My mother was encouraged by my enthusiasm but put
> > back things which still had grease on the sides or little specs
> > which were perfectly feelable. She told me she was glad I was
> > helping to wash but the outcome had to be that the dish was
> > clean.
> >
> > Now I'm not making a case for perfect scans, but nothing is more
> > frustrating than to get into the middle of a book and then
> > realize that suddenly I am hearing two columns of the book read
> > side by side. These books have never been read by anyone either
> > the scanner or the validator or they wouldn't appear like this.
> > Someone, be it the scanner or validator, it seems to me, has to
> > take responsibility for a read through. If it is the scanner,
> > then the validators job is easier. If it is not the scanner, then
> > the validator needs to be warned that he/she needs to read cover
> > to cover.
> >
> > Just my opinion, and presented respectfully I hope.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Susan Lumpkin" <slumpkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:36 PM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: My nickel's worth--quality control
> >
> >
> > Hi Liz,
> >
> > I may get bashed too, but as a validator only, I too would prefer
> > quality over quanity!
> >
> > Susan
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > .From: "Liz Halperin"<lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > .Sent: 6/17/04 4:04:12 PM
> > .To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > .Subject: [bksvol-discuss] My nickel's worth--quality control
> > .
> > .Ok, I suspect I may get bashed, but here goes anyway:
> > .
> > .I wish everyone would just SLOW DOWN. There seems to be this
> > frenzy to
> > .get books into the collection, and less care on their quality.
> > As a
> > .braille reader, I know I am in the minority, but my patience for
> > sloppy
> > .books is low.
> > .
> > .When I scan a book I am very careful to send a clean copy up. I
> > don't
> > .expect the validator to have to do much of anything except make
> > sure no
> > .corruption of the file has occurred. I am proud of quality over
> > .quantity.
> > .
> > .I have been doing some validating and there have been a few
> > books
> > .equally clean as those I submit. They are a joy to validate.
> > Most have
> > .problems. I fix what I can. Books are submitted without the ISBN
> > listed
> > .(even though it's right there), sections missing, whole messed
> > up pages.
> > .When I am faced with many blank pages and then text pages run
> > together
> > .and too many spelling errors and character errors, I feel no
> > guilt to
> > .reject the book. It's not worth spending so many hours on.
> > Better to get
> > .it rescanned in a better version. When I finally validate
> > something,
> > .it's clean and ready to go. Any problems after that are from the
> > .Bookshare conversion processes.
> > .
> > .With over 500 books waiting for validation, I wish there would
> > be a
> > .moratorium on scanning submissions. When there was too much
> > backlog at
> > .the Bookshare end, they made a concerted effort to get caught
> > up. It's
> > .now OUR end that needs the effort, the volunteers.
> > .
> > .The two lists, books-volunteer-discuss and books-discuss, are
> > very very
> > .busy. What if all the time spent reading and writing on the
> > lists was
> > .spent on validating, for awhile, at least?
> > .
> > .What if scanners made an effort to send up better quality? What
> > if
> > .validators had better quality to start with and so could approve
> > faster
> > .and cleaner? What if we humans went beyond spellcheck and made
> > sure that
> > .other errors were caught? Errors such as "form" for "from" and
> > "end" for
> > ."and" and stuff like that? What if we went for quality over
> > quantity
> > .for awhile?
> > .
> > .Liz in Seattle
> > .
> > .Liz Halperin
> > .Seattle, WA
> > .lizzers@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Other related posts:
