[bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 19:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
As a validator, I don't think it is too difficult to
remove the headers by hand, or, when possible, as it
sometimes is, with a global replace. Whether the
validator is one who reads and corrects errors as
he/she goes along or does the minimum. Added to the
minimum requirement of checking to be sure all the
pages are present and checking the copyright info,
deleting headers and leaving page numbers, or putting
them in when they're missing, could be added. That way
listeners who don't have programs that can delete the
headers wouldn't have to put up with them and we could
eliminate the stripper.
Cindy
The Pardees <fpardee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> At the risk of being ostracized and having none of
> my future submissions
> validated, let me make a few comments from the point
> of view of a speech
> reader.
>
> Despite the excellent scans now possible with the
> latest ocr engines, there
> can still be a large number of mistakes in the
> headers. While I remove the
> headers in the books I scan, most submitters do not,
> and I do not think all
> validaters are as dedicated as those on this list.
> If the headers are not
> stripped, the reader using speech could be subjected
> to three hundred or
> more phrases such as 'LHC AOLDM5PICLER5'.
> While these can be removed in Kurzweil and Open
> Book, not all readers have
> these programs.
>
> Perhaps before removing the stripper completely
> some method of
> retaining page numbers and chapter headings could be
> found.
> I recently downloaded and read one of my submissions
> in Daisy format and
> all page numbers and chapter headings were there.
> Why there and not in others? I don't know, but there
> must be a way of
> solving the problem.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:28 PM 7/22/05, you wrote:
>
> >Hello:
> >
> >I would like to here from people who disagree with
> me.
> >Let me know why you think the current setup makes
> sense.
> >
> >I do not mean for people to play devil's advocate
> with this.
> >I'm asking if anyone seriously disagrees with the
> centiments expressed
> >over the last 30 hours.
> >
> >(There is a method to my madness)
> >
> >-- Rui (who is probably liked at Benetech right now
> as much as the plague)
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Kent
> Stein" <dkent5817@xxxxxxx>
> >To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 PM
> >Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and
> colatteral damage
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Dear Charlyn and Bookshare community,
> >>
> >>I think a petition is an excellent idea. Charlyn,
> would you like to put it
> >>together? Rui, would you put it on the Bookshare
> Scans site?
> >>
> >>I also think we should select a day to make phone
> calls and send emails to
> >>the Bookshare staff calling on them to turn off
> the stripper. How about
> >>Thursday, July 28, one week after this most recent
> stripper discussion
> >>began.
> >>
> >>We need to take in the fact that, as Bookshare
> volunteers and users, we must
> >>have direct say on policy issues. Right now this
> list is virtually the only
> >>vehicle we have for reaching the staff, and it is
> clearly ineffective. The
> >>stripper issue highlights a need for a more
> formalized means of
> >>communication. Maybe we should develop an
> advisory committee which can
> >>bring concerns to the staff and have a real voice
> in policymaking.
> >>
> >>As blind people, most of us have grown up with the
> sense that we're lucky to
> >>get whatever reading matter is offered to us. We
> had better be appreciative
> >>and not complain. On the title page of every book
> from the National Library
> >>Service we read that the book has been produced
> for the blind and physically
> >>handicapped "with the kind permission of the
> publisher." That line about
> >>"the kind permission" says so much! Do sighted
> people need anyone's kind
> >>permission in order to read? I AM in fact
> extraordinarily grateful to the
> >>volunteers and others who have spent countless
> hours putting books into
> >>Braille and recorded formats for us, and to those
> who have worked to change
> >>copyright laws and make our special-format books
> possible! Most of us would
> >>not be literate, educated, contributing members of
> society without their
> >>help! But I think that our lifelong dependence
> upon others to provide us
> >>with books, and the constant feeling that we must
> be grateful and that we
> >>can't expect too much, do take a toll.
> >>
> >>Bookshare is different. Bookshare is a program
> which is not only FOR us,
> >>but BY us. We, the volunteers, determine what
> books go into the collection,
> >>and we ourselves make them available. We are not
> "only volunteers" who have
> >>no right to determine policy. We are the backbone
> of the program - a
> >>program which is created to meet our needs and
> those of other blind and
> >>print-disabled people. The Bookshare staff are
> not users of Bookshare
> >>materials. They do not live with the
> inaccessibility of print; they don't
> >>experience our issues from the inside. It is
> absolutely essential that they
> >>listen to what we have to say.
> >>
> >>Bookshare is an incredible program, and I believe
> in it utterly. It has the
> >>potential to narrow the print gap for us as no
> other program ever has
> >>before. But we need to take a stand and insist
> that it be the quality
> >>program we all deserve.
> >>
> >>Debbie
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:11 AM
> >>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and
> colatteral damage
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe we could put together a pteition of some
> sort and put a notice on
> >>>the volunteer website as well to see if we could
> get enough people to
> >>>sign it to send to bookshare requesting them to
> stop using the program.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Pam Quinn
> >>>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:02 PM
> >>>To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and
> colatteral damage
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
