[bksvol-discuss] Re: stripper and colatteral damage
- From: "Jake Brownell" <jabrown@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:12:34 -0500
Hey Pam,
Probably one of the reasons the stripper hasn't been dealt with is that
is a totally automated process. Books might make it on the site a few
seconds faster because the server doesn't preprocess the material, but it
takes no action on Gustavo's part to invoke the stripping.
HTH,
Jake
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Quinn" <quinn.family@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:01 AM
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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/55 - Release Date: 7/21/2005
>
>
Other related posts:
