I don't think the issue is about garbled stuff, it's about the meaningful headers that get dumped. -----Original Message----- From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pam Quinn Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:20 PM To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: Where are those contrarians? But I thought the stripper only removed headers if they repeated, so therefore garbled headings were left anyway. > Pam Original message: > >At the risk of being ostracized and having none of my future submissions >validated, let me make a few comments from the point of view of a speech >reader. > >Despite the excellent scans now possible with the latest ocr engines, >there >can still be a large number of mistakes in the headers. While I remove the >headers in the books I scan, most submitters do not, and I do not think all >validaters are as dedicated as those on this list. If the headers are not >stripped, the reader using speech could be subjected to three hundred or >more phrases such as 'LHC AOLDM5PICLER5'. >While these can be removed in Kurzweil and Open Book, not all readers have >these programs. > >Perhaps before removing the stripper completely some method of >retaining page numbers and chapter headings could be found. >I recently downloaded and read one of my submissions in Daisy format >and >all page numbers and chapter headings were there. >Why there and not in others? I don't know, but there must be a way of >solving the problem. > >Jim > > > > > > > >At 06:28 PM 7/22/05, you wrote: > >>Hello: >> >>I would like to here from people who disagree with me. >>Let me know why you think the current setup makes sense. >> >>I do not mean for people to play devil's advocate with this. I'm >>asking if anyone seriously disagrees with the centiments expressed >>over the last 30 hours. >> >>(There is a method to my madness) >> >>-- Rui (who is probably liked at Benetech right now as much as the >>plague) >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Kent Stein" >><dkent5817@xxxxxxx> >>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 PM >>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage >> >> >>> >>>Dear Charlyn and Bookshare community, >>> >>>I think a petition is an excellent idea. Charlyn, would you like to >>>put it together? Rui, would you put it on the Bookshare Scans site? >>> >>>I also think we should select a day to make phone calls and send emails to >>>the Bookshare staff calling on them to turn off the stripper. How about >>>Thursday, July 28, one week after this most recent stripper >>>discussion began. >>> >>>We need to take in the fact that, as Bookshare volunteers and users, >>>we must have direct say on policy issues. Right now this list is >>>virtually the only vehicle we have for reaching the staff, and it is >>>clearly ineffective. The stripper issue highlights a need for a more >>>formalized means of communication. Maybe we should develop an >>>advisory committee which can bring concerns to the staff and have a >>>real voice in policymaking. >>> >>>As blind people, most of us have grown up with the sense that we're >>>lucky to get whatever reading matter is offered to us. We had better >>>be appreciative and not complain. On the title page of every book >>>from the National Library Service we read that the book has been >>>produced for the blind and physically handicapped "with the kind >>>permission of the publisher." That line about "the kind permission" >>>says so much! Do sighted people need anyone's kind permission in >>>order to read? I AM in fact extraordinarily grateful to the >>>volunteers and others who have spent countless hours putting books >>>into Braille and recorded formats for us, and to those who have >>>worked to change copyright laws and make our special-format books >>>possible! Most of us would not be literate, educated, contributing >>>members of society without their help! But I think that our lifelong >>>dependence upon others to provide us with books, and the constant >>>feeling that we must be grateful and that we can't expect too much, >>>do take a toll. >>> >>>Bookshare is different. Bookshare is a program which is not only FOR >>>us, but BY us. We, the volunteers, determine what books go into the >>>collection, and we ourselves make them available. We are not "only >>>volunteers" who have no right to determine policy. We are the >>>backbone of the program - a program which is created to meet our >>>needs and those of other blind and print-disabled people. The >>>Bookshare staff are not users of Bookshare materials. They do not >>>live with the inaccessibility of print; they don't experience our >>>issues from the inside. It is absolutely essential that they listen >>>to what we have to say. >>> >>>Bookshare is an incredible program, and I believe in it utterly. It >>>has the potential to narrow the print gap for us as no other program >>>ever has before. But we need to take a stand and insist that it be >>>the quality program we all deserve. >>> >>>Debbie >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Charlene" <caota@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:11 AM >>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage >>> >>> >>>>Maybe we could put together a pteition of some sort and put a notice >>>>on the volunteer website as well to see if we could get enough >>>>people to sign it to send to bookshare requesting them to stop using >>>>the program. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pam Quinn >>>>Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:02 PM >>>>To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage >>>> >>>> >>>>We take pride in our submissions and I just don't think a lot of the >>>>bookshare staff understands how angry and frustrated we are when we >>>>see that our submissions have been mangled. And for what? I just >>>>don't get it. Why do they insist on holding on to that useless >>>>program that nobody wants? Seems to me if anything, dropping it >>>>would mean one less step and less work in putting the books on the >>>>site. >>>> >>>>I use chapter headings for my breaking points in .mp3 files too, >>>>when I'm lucky enough to have them. >>>> >>>>It might not be our decision and they might not want to listen to >>>>us, but that would be unfortunate, because the volunteers and >>>>subscribers have a major role in determining the future of >>>>bookshare. >>>> >>>>Pam >>>> >>>>Original message: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >I have seriously considered not submitting some books I have >>>> >scanned just because I thought they would be of little use after >>>> >the stripper >>>>finished >>>> >with them. I put a lot of work in to what I submit and it is >>>> >really upsetting to see the final result when my original looked >>>> >so nice, and >>>>that >>>> >is only a volunteer's view. I also am upset by the messes that I >>>> >come accross when I am reading, even for pleasure. I use the >>>> >chapter >>>>headings >>>> >as my MP3 creation breaking points, so if they aren't there I have >>>> >a >>>>big >>>> >mess! >>>> > >>>> >I don't really like throwing fits, and I won't on this list >>>> >because it seems to serve little purpose, but the fits are >>>> >completely justified. >>>> > >>>> >If i submitted a book in DAISY and BRF format instead of in RTF >>>> >would the normal automated processes be skipped? That is the only >>>> >thing I can >>>>think >>>> >of to rescue books where the headers, headings, and page numbers >>>> >are invaluable. >>>> > >>>> >Sarah Van Oosterwijck >>>> >Assistive Technology Trainer http://home.earthlink.net/~netentity >>>> >----- Original Message ----- >>>> >From: "Deborah Kent Stein" <dkent5817@xxxxxxx> >>>> >To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 7:10 PM >>>> >Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 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? >>>> >> >>>> >> Debbie >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ----- 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 >>>> >> caused >>>> >>> > 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 >>>> >> dismal >>>> >>> > failure breading as much (or perhaps even more) than it has >>>> >>> > repaired. It's not our decision as we are volunteers, not >>>> >>> > decision-makers. >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >>>> >> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/52 - Release Date: >>>>7/19/2005 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >