[bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage

  • From: "Deborah Kent Stein" <dkent5817@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:10:44 -0500

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?


----- 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
> > 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
> > failure breading as much (or perhaps even more) than it has repaired.
> > It's not our decision as we are volunteers, not decision-makers.
> >
> >
> >
> >

Other related posts: