[bksvol-discuss] Re: quality and compairisons
- From: Guido Corona <guidoc@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:46:41 -0500
No, the repository in question is not Gutemberg. I am not comparing
apples to oranges.
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
"Kellie Hartmann" <kellhart@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/16/2004 01:46 PM
Please respond to
bksvol-discuss
To
<bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[bksvol-discuss] quality and compairisons
Hi all,
Guido, you make an interesting point with the quality comparisons. The
only
other repository I know is Gutenberg, and of course their texts are
perfect,
or very very close to it. But one difference is that Gutenberg asks its
volunteers to do proofreading. In order to assure great quality *someone*,
be it submitter or validator, would have to read the book. Yes there can
be
a lot done by the submitter to ensure that the scan is clean, all pages
are
there, and most junk characters removed. But there are many mistakes that
aren't going to be caught by a spellchecker. I'm not saying that
spellcheck
is not useful because clearly it is, but if people want there books to be
as
perfect as Web Braille or Gutenberg then serious proofreading will have to
be done. I'm not writing this to discourage validators who work on books
without reading them, or submitters who unselfishly submit books they
aren't
very interested infor the sake of the collection. I'm just acknowledging a
reality.
Kellie
Other related posts:
