[bksvol-discuss] Re: question for member bookshare readers re tables of contents

  • From: "Mayrie ReNae" <mayrierenae@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:58:42 -0800

Hi Lynn,
Much of what you speak about has been discussed before.  Bookshare's tools
do take care of a lot of what you talk about.  And there are sections in the
scanning and proofreading manual that talk about how best to proofread a
book, which includes formatting.  These instructions have been approved by
bookshare staff.  


From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lynn Zelvin
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:07 AM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: question for member bookshare readers re
tables of contents

There was a point where just being able to read a book at all was considered
wonderful enough and better scanning quality was the best we could hope for.
I'm appreciating all the thought it seems is now being put into formatting
and other improvements.  That being said, we're really working with very
inadequate tools in trying to do better with this. We're asking the question
as to the best compromise solution considering that there are probably a
half dozen different formats in which people are reading these books -
braille with several different page widths, text-to-speech with some people
just sitting back and listening and others actively moving through the text
as they read, some with a screen reader on their computer and some with a
DAISY player on a computer or stand-alone device. Some use enlarged print
where some enlarge the text meaning again we have different page widths, and
others leave the original text and use software to magnify their screen
image. Some are using combinations both looking at the words and listening.
I've occasionally had things I did with both speech and braille, although I
don't know if anyone actually reads that way. There are probably more that
I'm not thinking about. 

It's impossible to find one best way for all of these.   The answer is in
being able to  use formatting and style codes, or at least in being able to
standardize. and then for the final formats to make use of those codes. So
if you code something as a page number, when converting to braille, it can
be, for example, placed in the top right corner regardless of how wide the
page is, could be spaced differently for different presentations of
enlargement,  and could contain a code that lets the daisy player actually
know it's a page number. a line of dots in tables of contents could be
present in visual and braille presentations, adjusted for page width, and
be active links to the actual page.  

I'd thought bookshare was doing some of that, but as I do tend to ignore
formatting when I read, I can't say I've noticed.   I don't use daisy
players or anything else fancy as I  don't like the speech engines they use.
I'm sure they must certainly be doing this with the NIMAC books that  we
aren't allowed to access. I was going to go poking around in some of the
books I already have, but it would be easier for someone who already knows
to give an answer. Even though they don't ask volunteers to add in codes,
I'd assumed they did some things by automation, like  coding as page numbers
sequential numbers that appear at the beginning and end of pages.  If
they're not, considering all the work volunteers are now putting into these
books, it seems we should ask them for a few codes we can use.  Validators
who chose could then properly code tables of contents, chapter headings,
page numbers, and footnotes, at the least. The volunteer manual I saw did
recommend  enough  standardization of such things that it does seem
bookshare could be making use of such efforts in the conversion process.
Maybe they're afraid not enough people would validate books if they were
expected to do this, but since some *are* doing it, maybe we could get some
guidance from them. Maybe if they are not making full use of our efforts, we
could prod them? 

Am I correct in my new reckoning that there is a gap between volunteers and
paid staff, that people making decisions about what to automate and how to
convert books are not interacting with people doing scanning and validating?
Is it that the hopes, which I share, are pinned on getting text from
publishers in the future and thus not needing to go through all this? Well,
even then we'll still need these tools to include older books in the
collection. In the past validators were asked to do simpler things like make
sure all the pages seem to be there. It's a lot more now and I think that's
good, but what a shame for us here making such compromise decisions when we
could do something that will really be used properly. Has this been
discussed already? 


Other related posts: