And having someone else proofread your work finds errors one misses. After all, you wrote it so of course it says what you think it says. Sue Mangis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pratik Patel" <pratikp1@xxxxxxxxx> To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: August 23, 2004 8:30 AM Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Validating books > James, > > The calls for proof-reading books from the original submitters is not to > have the original submitters completely read the books that they > submit--though they may choose to do so. What many volunteers are > frustrated about is the lack of any care when submitters submit the > material. Although this doesn't apply to all individuals, it is problematic > in many instances. What the alidator would like to see is some care being > taken so that there are no pages missing or that most of the necessary > information appears where it is supposed to. The validators are here to > look over the material with a second, impartial judgment. That is one of > the reasons why Bookshare--and I would as well-discourage individual > submitters to validate their own material. > > Pratik > > > > Pratik Patel > Managing Director > CUNYAssistive Technology Services > The City University of New York > ppatel@xxxxxx > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Nuttall [mailto:jnuttallphd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 10:11 AM > To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Validating books > > What exactly is the purpose of validating books? Some have written on the > forum that they would like those who scan a book to proofread the book. I > can understand especially for Braille users the need for accuracy. > However my question is, "if the person doing scanning also does the > proofreading why can't we skip the validation step?" > > Jim -- Michigan > > talmage@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I couldn't really say when 2 page mode became a standard feature in > Openbook or Kurzweil, as I took a hiatus from Openbook between versions 2 > and 6. I must admit that I've never used anymore than a demo of the > Kurzweil software line, but I started out with the Openbook products back > when they were Arkanstone Reader and had the full sized ISA card. Back > then it was great, Arkanstone would send updates to the software end of the > system at frequent intervals, and at no charge. When they moved over to > the software only system with Openbook, I only went as far as V2 (not sure > which minor version was my last), and then got tired of shelling out what I > consider significant amounts of cash for updates. When I wanted improved > OCR after that, I went to the online auctions and picked up inexpensive > copies of Textbridge and Omnipage. One of the problems with the version of > Textbridge 98 was it didn't have a 2 page mode only a multiple column mode, > which resulted in scans like those that started this thread. The scans > could be of high quality, you just had to put up with 1 long page rather > than 2. A year or so ago, I finally moved back to Openbook > V6. Unfortunately, with V7, there were no new features that I could see > that would justify my upgrading, so probably when they improve it enough > with V8 or 9 it will be a costly upgrade again. > > Dave > > At 09:59 PM 8/22/2004, you wrote: > >Hi, Dave. You are probably right about that. I just thought that two page > >mode had been around for years. I used to scan in one page mode, but I > >think that was back in the early days of K1000 when it didn't have a two > >page mode. I don't remember when openbook added two page mode. I stopped > >using it when it was 2.2U. > >eAt 8/22/2004, you wrote: > > > > >Hi Paul, > > > > > >I think you may have missed the beginning of this thread, but the books > in > > >question are old scans Cindy has in her collection. > > > > > >Dave > > > > > >At 01:47 AM 8/22/2004, you wrote: > > > >Hi. Why can't you scan them in two page mode? With today's scanning > > > >programs, that shouldn't be a problem. > > > >It also bothers me that people are scanning and submitting books > without > > > >even bothering to proofread what they scan. The volunteers don't have > time > > > >to proofread each and everypage. Doesn't submitting books in this > fashion > > > >just create more garbage on bookshare? > > > >But there should be no reason for books that are not paginated > properly. > > > >K1000 does it and I assume openbook does the same. > > > >At 8/20/2004, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >Cindy, > > > > > > > > > >You can submit them! Just a few of the validators are a bit > > stickler for > > > > >perfection. Messed up pagination is not a legal reason for rejection! > > > > > > > > > >There are only five things a bookshare book needs. > > > > > > > > > >Title > > > > >Author > > > > >Copyright date and holder > > > > >All pages or at least 99.9 percent of them, > > > > > > > > > >And the text be readable. > > > > > > > > > >The rest is perfection on the part of the validator, and if they > reject > > > > >perfectly legidment submissions then... they need to reconsider not > > > > >validating that kind of material in the next time. > > > > > > > > > >Excellence is good, this book that you are submitting is devoid of > other > > > > >errors as you fixed them, so their "excellent text quality is > > there. Just > > > > >not the pages. > > > > > > > > > >Submit them! And someone will appreciate them! > > > > > > > > > >Perfection is o.k., but obsessing on it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Shelley L. Rhodes and Judson, guiding golden > > > > >juddysbuddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >Guide Dogs For the Blind Inc. > > > > >Graduate Advisory Council > > > > >www.guidedogs.com > > > > > > > > > >The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to > > > > >stare up the steps - we must step up the stairs. > > > > > > > > > > -- Vance Havner > > > > > >