[bksvol-discuss] Re: request of submitters

  • From: "Julie & Miss Mercy" <mercy421@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:01:51 -0400

Hi Emily. I don't think you're speaking out of turn here at all and in fact, 
most, if not all, of the people here on this list would agree with what you're 
saying here. Again most, if not all, of the people on this list do more than 
the minimum requirements. Many times when discussions of this sort come up 
people say they're preaching to the choir here and that's why. Most of us are 
on this list to begin with because we do want to do better, we want to do more 
and we want what we do to be quality work. That doesn't mean everyone who 
doesn't belong to the list does less and their work isn't quality. It just 
means most, if not all, of us who are here definitely agree that we do go 
beyond what Bookshare says we absolutely have to.
Julie Morales
Windows Live Messenger:
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Emily Harrison 
  To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 8:56 PM
  Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: request of submitters

  I may be out of place, but I think I'll weigh in here.  My feeling as a 
proofreader is, why should we only strive for the minimum requirements?  Isn't 
it important to do more than that which is required by Bookshare, in order to 
assure the best possible reading experience for those who take advantage of 
what Bookshare offers?  I don't think the Bookshare requirements for proofing 
(title page, copyright info) are stringent enough, and I for one am willing to 
go further, to actually correct the scan errors and other issues which affect 
the quality of the final product.  I'm a beginner, so perhaps I'm speaking out 
of line.  But I just don't think it's enough to say, "That's all Bookshare 
requires, so that's good enough."  Most of us are willing to do better than 
that, so those who think "just good enough" is sufficient are bound to both 
annoy and, in their neglegence, potentially cause difficulty by leaving errors 

  Obviously, I wouldn't consider a quick turn around from a scan and proof team 
to be a "jiffy proof."  I'm part of a team myself, and it's quite possible that 
if we were both in the right frame of mind, we could scan, proof and submit a 
book all in one day.  I don't think the discussion of jiffy proofing, as it's 
currently being discussed, refers to such types of proofing at all, and thus 
it's sort of a moot point.

  Emily Harrison

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 3953 (20090321) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


Other related posts: