Yes, there are a lot of non-children's books with photographs and/or illustrations, sometimes grouped together in the middle of of a book and sometimes spread throughout on different pages--and there are books, like Stephen King's Misery and others I've done where there is handwriting--letters, diary entries, newspaper articles done in different fonts. Perhaps they will be o.k. in PQ submissions since those won't be scanned; how they will download for readers I have no idea. Cindy --- On Tue, 8/12/08, Bob <rwiley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Bob <rwiley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Bookshare & PQ submission > To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008, 3:32 PM > Well said Jim. > > I suspect this discussion will go on, perhaps in a > different guise, for some > time to come. I don't think the discussion has much to > do with publisher > quality books--though the argument about picture > descriptions does have some > merit. Let me give you a brief example of the effort > involved in getting a > picture description. Some time ago I validated "Time > enough for Love" a > science fiction classic. It had been scanned by Carry > Carno. Those > validators who are familiar with her work know that her > scans are usually > excellent. However, this book had one page that seemed to > be filled with > garbage characters. By applying several tricks of the > trade, I could tell > that there was some writing there, I could even pick out a > few words. But > the page was ... basically ... a waste. I contacted Carry > and gave her a > page number. She wrote back and told me that the page was a > picture of a > newspaper page; she further told me what the page said. I > duly reported this > in the book as a [scanner's description]. > > I bring this up to say that this collaborative effort > between ms Carno and > myself will be brushed aside as inconsequential if a > publisher ever decides > to send us this book. It's a minor thing--it's one > page in a 400 page book. > And it may seem meaningless. But for me, it represented a > not-so-meaningless > effort; and I take pride in taking care of that > inconsistency. > > I realize that change is inevitable, and change is usually > good. However, > since we've replaced the horse and carriage with the > horseless carriage; > does anyone ever take the time to smell the wonderful > smells of the leather > saddle, or to enjoy the human interaction with a trusted > animal friend? Not > so much anymore, I think! > > As I said earlier, this discussion will probably continue > in a variety of > email subjects as those of us involved adjust to the > changes to come. > > Thanks again for enlightening us on this matter. > > Oh yes, lest I be accused of trying to speak for the group, > the ideas > discussed here are solely my own, and I alone am > responsible for them. > > Bob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:46 AM > Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Bookshare & PQ submission > > > > Reading the thread about publisher quality > submissions, I thought it was > > worth weighing in with more information. The mission > of Bookshare.org > > is to get better access to books to people who cannot > effectively access > > print. I know our volunteers support that mission. > > > > I consider the issue of possibly losing quality > content, that is, > > something that makes the reader experience better > (like picture > > descriptions), is always worth looking at. That's > because it ties > > directly to our mission. I hear people worrying about > throwing out > > children's picture books with picture descriptions > and replacing them > > with publisher-supplied versions. But, I don't > think we have any > > children's book publishers providing us with > digital content. We're not > > focusing on them, because there isn't a big win > there (34 words in a > > kids book is not that hard to get in by typing). > We're focusing on > > textbooks and technical books, and getting trade books > when we can. > > Scholastic gave us permission to provide their books > globally, but > > didn't give us any digital content. So, I think > folks should not be > > worrying about a surge of kid's picture books with > 34 words in place of > > 34 words plus nice picture descriptions. > > > > The other important part of publishers supplying > content is that almost > > all of them provide these global rights that enable us > to expand > > Bookshare.org to serve all print disabled people > globally. That's > > really important for our mission: many more people > need us than live in > > the U.S. Publishers often require us to replace the > scanned books with > > the digital books, to minimize the concerns publishers > and authors have > > about having errors in their work. This is a big, big > concern of > > authors, and we have to acknowledge that as creators > of the wonderful > > books we share, we have to respect their concern that > their works be > > communicated in the as close to the original quality > as possible. Our > > community has benefited from the dedication of our > validators to ensure > > these outcomes. > > > > The issue of "throwing away" volunteer work > to give the reader a better > > quality book seems like an odd issue. Improved > quality content has been > > the number one issue of Bookshare readers when we > survey them. It's > > certainly the number one issue of ex-Bookshare.org > users, and I take our > > failure to serve them seriously. Our volunteers have > always embraced > > making better scans of books. Why does this change > when it's the > > publisher volunteering a better version of the book? > We wouldn't keep > > the fair version of a scanned book around when it was > replaced with an > > excellent scan: we've been throwing them away with > our dedication to the > > readers. Plus, the publisher quality books are > increasingly coming to > > us with improved navigation options. > > > > Let's be honest: volunteers will continue to be > the primary source of > > books for a long time: years and years. 95+% of the > books in > > Bookshare.org is there because someone in our > volunteer community > > decided it was worth having. If someone complains > that a book isn't of > > the quality it says it is, we'll replace it with a > better one. That's > > we've decided that if one person in our community > thought it was > > important to have, we will invest the money to buy the > books and the > > energy to replicate it. > > > > We're here fighting for equality for readers with > disabilities. The > > "powers that be" are pretty clear about > mission and our entire team > > spends a lot of time trying to figure out the best > ways to accomplish > > that mission. My suggestion is that when there are > changes (and there > > are going to be a lot of really great changes) to > Bookshare.org, that we > > can assume that everybody on the Bookshare.org team, > users, volunteers > > and staff, are all trying to accomplish the grand > goal: the highest > > quality books at the same time as non-disabled people > have them, for the > > same of lower price! > > > > Jim Fruchterman > > To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to > > bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the > subject line. To get a list > > of available commands, put the word 'help' by > itself in the subject line. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1605 - > Release Date: 8/11/2008 > > 4:59 PM > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to > bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject > line. To get a list of available commands, put the word > 'help' by itself in the subject line. To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.