[bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians?
- From: Cindy <popularplace@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Kenneth,
I'm not sure if my answer to Jim got posted, but ...
I'm not sure if it would work, but my idea is that
the stripper be eliminated, since it seems to strip
pages along with the header, even though it isn't
supposed to, from what we've been told. The
validators' job would include eliminating the headers
by hand, or , where it's possible, by a global replace
with nothing (I've done that many times and it works
well) but leaving in page numbers of putting them in
if they aren't there. That would solve the problem Jim
mentioned of some people who listen to books and/or
don't have machines that can eliminated headers for
themselves. Whether a validator does the minimum of
checking copyrights and being sure that all the pages
are there, eliminating headers wouldn't take that much
more time, and those of us who read and correct as we
go along probably do it already. It really isn't a big
deal for a validator--and certaiinly the small amount
of work and time that's involved is worth it to ensure
that the Bookshare member and reader has page numbers
but not headers. I don't see what function headers
have. I wish a publisher of editor could tell us. I
wonder if it isn't just a left-over tradition from
when books were first published and monks and scribes
decorated books. I'll have to do some research.
Cindy
-- "Kenneth A. Cross" <crossk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I just can't help repeating the point that stripping
> page numbers
> invalidates the book for any serious researcher or
> teacher or leader of a
> discussion among blind and sighted users. What we
> end up with is a service
> only for the casual reader. That does not mean we
> don't have a positive
> resource, but it does limit its use, particularly in
> areas where employment
> could result from a more controlled treatment.
>
> I personally have submitted a large number of
> materials which could be used
> in research. They can't be, because one would have
> to procure a print book
> and a sighted helper to use them. To me, that is a
> great concern,
> particularly because I, too, would like to use some
> of the materials on the
> system and have the ability to refer to specific
> pages in discussions and
> teaching.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
> To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:49 AM
> Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those
> contrarians?
>
>
> > Hi Scott:
> > As I stated before:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > If I don't want to read the headers, I can strip
> them out myself or use
> an
> > automated tool (k1000) to do so."
> >
> > Scott and Jim, nothing prevents you from stripping
> those headers out
> > yourself before you begin reading.
> > It would then leave the material in the master
> copy for those of us who
> want
> > it.
> >
> > In fact, I would do more touch-up work on things
> like headers but I don't
> > because the first couple of lines of each page
> seem to be the strippers
> > domain and therefore my efforts would be futile.
> >
> > The ironic thing is that we spend time on this
> list devising and testing
> > various stripper countermeasures and bookshare is
> aware of this and does
> not
> > discourage it.
> >
> > Keri Carmos saw that full well with hp6.
> > (It's like rolling a boulder up hill)
> >
> >
> > Jim:
> > You make some interesting points.
> > As someone has previously mentioned, if the
> headers are too mangled, not
> > even the stripper will strip them.
> >
> > The stripper is just plain erratic. It does
> different things to the
> same
> > header within the same book.
> >
> > This is clearly a case where the benefit is not
> worth the cost. not with
> all
> > this collateral damage being done.
> >
> > I urge you all to continue doing what your doing.
> (if anything try to
> > validate a little more so we can cut down the step
> 1 page)
> >
> > I will drop this issue for now, but i am not
> forgetting about it and I
> trust
> > after these last couple days, Bookshare won't
> forget either.
> >
> > -- Rui
> > a 2004 Volunteer of the year
> > and a 2005 pain in the rear. (smile)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Blanks" <scottsjb@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:58 PM
> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those
> contrarians?
> >
> >
> > > Let me speak first as a reader of Bookshare
> books. I mostly read
> fiction,
> > > with the occasional pop culture book thrown in
> for variety. I read
> almost
> > > all these books in Braille. I don't want to see
> repeated text such as
> page
> > > numbers, author/title info, etc. If people want
> to be able to see that
> > > info, there should be an option to include or
> exclude this from your
> book.
> > > Chapters and other major headings should be
> included of course, and I
> > > believe that problem will be addressed.
> > >
> > > As a validator, I can't think of a good enough
> reason at this point to
> > > stop submitting books and validating them. That
> includes the stripper
> > > issue. If we stop submitting or validating
> works, we're hurting a much
> > > larger group of people than ourselves. The
> ultimate purpose of Bookshare
> > > is to give access to books. There are still many
> books rated fair on the
> > > website, and in the past I'm sure there were a
> much higher percentage of
> > > "fair" books submitted to the site, but we
> wouldn't have wanted those
> > > books held back from being available just
> because they were poorly
> > > scanned. I don't want people deprived of books
> just because of a missing
> > > chapter heading, or because there aren't page
> numbers included.
> > >
> > > Let's take things slow and easy folks.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rui" <goldWave@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:28 PM
> > > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Where are those
> contrarians?
> > >
> > >
> > >> 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:
