[bookshare-discuss] Re: Better Scans?

  • From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:28:15 -0500

You are right Anne.  The only one who would be able to tell the difference 
is the poor volunteer who has been driven to the 'bottle' after attempting 
to fix a few books scanned with Reading Edge.  But,  I am not really 
concerned about that:  Alcoholic Anonimous tend to do an excellent job at 
rehabilitation.
On the other hand,  as Reading Edge is now a fossil,  the discussion is 
moote.

G.


Guido D. Corona
IBM Accessibility Center,  Austin Tx.
IBM Research,
Phone:  (512) 838-9735
Email: guidoc@xxxxxxxxxxx

Visit my weekly Accessibility WebLog at:
http://www-3.ibm.com/able/weblog/corona_weblog.html





Ann Parsons 
Sent by: 
05/11/2004 12:07 PM
Please respond to
bookshare-discuss


To
bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
[bookshare-discuss] Re: Better Scans?






Hi all,

Actually, if the unit still works, it's a viable scanning option,
Guido.  There are people in this world who would be very glad to get a
Reading Edge to scan their materials.  Since a computer, a scanner, a
good screen reader, and reading software costs in the neighborhood of
$3,000, a Reading Edge bought at a much reduced price would be a boone
to someone.  <smile>  There are people who still drive Packard and
Edzel cars, and those cars are worth a considerable amount of money.
I'll wager that if the copy were cleaned up, Guido, you wouldn't be
able to tell if it had been scanned with a Reading Edge or the newest
version of Kurzweil or Open Book.  All ASCII texts look alike fer as I
can tell.

Ann P.
 
-- 
                                                 Ann K. Parsons 
email:  akp@xxxxxxxxx 
WEB SITE:  http://home.eznet.net/~akp
"All that is gold does not glitter. 
Not all those who wander are lost."  JRRT






Other related posts: