[bksvol-discuss] Re: New proofreaders
- From: Valerie Maples <vlmaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:16:21 -0500
Hi, Scott!
In talking to multiple people invested in emergent literacy, then, we need to
find a way to consider either not adding picture descriptions on beginning
readers with images instead and a different version for blind kids and parents.
Otherwise, the books can actually be harmful to assisting kids in developing
literacy. I am probably not distilling the message properly, but different
reading levels, cognitives levels have different needs and a one size fits all
will actually discourage beginning readers from developing literacy.
I am not saying change everything old, but rather, can we consider a shift to a
more appropriate level for children on newly added books? Considering so much
funding has come from the DOE, I think literacy for kids, not just literature
access should eventually be considered as we realize the impact and opportunity
we have.
Thank you for your patience with me as I try to help kids learn to love to read
without barriers.
Valerie
On Jul 25, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Scott Rains wrote:
> Hi Valerie,
>
> I got an answer back already This is not a change we can support given the
> legacy of DAISY books in the collection. Sorry.
>
> Scott Rains
>
> From: Valerie Maples <vlmaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:36:56 -0700
> To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New proofreaders
>
> Hi, Scott!
>
> Ask them to seriously consider it as an option, if not a standard. It is a
> huge deal for starting sighted readers that Nichole is very eagerly
> advocating for.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Valerie
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Scott Rains wrote:
>
>> Valerie,
>>
>> Interesting approach. Let me talk it through with Collection Development and
>> Engineering. A change like that would require a lot of cross-domain
>> conversation. But, for now, the answer is "no."
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> From: Valerie Maples <vlmaples@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reply-To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:29:43 -0700
>> To: "bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: New proofreaders
>>
>> Hey, Scott!
>>
>> Reading with Nichole and trying to work with Nichole's teacher about
>> introducing Bookshare to beginning readers, I have a question/proposition.
>> In order to place emphasis on readable text in board books and early reader
>> picture books, books that have no other navigation than title, would it be
>> acceptable to put book text in bold 16 or 18 pt. and picture descriptions,
>> not bolded and in 12 pt? It would help print "pop" for visual readers
>> (dyspexic and kids with PD) and even allow teaching navigation in a more
>> useful and functional ways to early readers. That way a parent reading the
>> book would have easy access to all information, but a new reader being
>> introduced to reading would have better presentation of age level text.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Valerie
>>
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Scott Rains wrote:
>>
>>> 4) Use these font sizes: For the:
>>> 20 point + BOLDING Book title
>>> 18 point + BOLDING Larger section
>>> headings (such as "Part I", or "Section 2")
>>> 16 point + BOLDING Headings for each
>>> section in the Front Matter, & Back Matter
>>> 16 point + BOLDING Chapter headings
>>> 14 point + BOLDING Chapter subheadings
>>> 12 point Text in the
>>> body of the book
>>> 5) Maximum font size for anything in the file:
>>> = 20 point
>>> Minimum font size for anything in the file:
>>> = 8 point
>>> Scott
>>
>
Other related posts:
