You are 100 percent correct Axel. If you don't commit to cleaning up
scanned materials then it would probably be a better idea not to scan at all.

OCR is really much better than it was but certainly not perfect.

Dick

At 10:31 AM 4/16/2002, you wrote:
>Axel,
>
>My personal opinion is that e-reserve materials are a tremendous step
>forward in terms of accessibility but they need to be in accessible
>formats.  This would mean scanning, running OCR to convert them to text,
>and  then editing and proofreading them for format and accuracy.  This
>process should produce very clean and useable accessible e-reserve
>documents.  One of the biggest problems I've seen so far in this area is
>when libraries skip the clean-up step and just post the OCRed
>documents.  OCR just isn't sufficient to render accurate and usable
>e-reference documents without editing and proofreading.  So my opinion is
>yes, support e-reference documents but create the documents right and
>invest the time to clean them up before they go on-line.
>
>Jeff Senge
>Information & Computer Access Program Coordinator
>California State University, Fullerton
>(714) 278-7253
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dick Banks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:08 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: electronic reserve and image-based pdf files
>
>
>Actually both products mentioned below are quite good. Even the cheaper OCR
>packages like TextBridge and some others I can't remember the name of at
>the moment are quite good. Almost any inexpensive scanner comes with a
>scanning package and part of the package has OCR options.
>
>As with any OCR package. The cleaner the text the better the OCR.
>
>Dick
>
>At 10:14 PM 4/15/2002, you wrote:
> >Thanks Trevor! I'm not familiar with Omnipage. It sounds as if it is
> >similar to Kurzweil 1000, which, as I understand it, is capable of OCRing
> >any document that can be potentially printed, including scanned-in pages
> >of articles. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I would like to hear from
> >folks who have experience with this Kurzweil 1000 function (or with
> >Omnipage).  What are the current problems? Are they likely to get resolved
> >as technology advances?
> >
> >I'm trying to form an opinion on this emerging technology: Should we, as
> >accessibility-advocating librarians, keep up our resistance to an
> >electronic reserve system that contains image-based/scanned-in material,
> >or should we concede that advancing technology makes concerns about the
> >accessibility of image-based documents increasingly a non-issue? Should we
> >pursue strategies that would result in the placement of accessible,
> >text-based materials on e-reserves, or is it wiser to channel our energy
> >into a different direction?
> >
> >What do you people think?
> >
> >Axel
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Trevor Wilks [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:50 AM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Docutek's electronic reserve product (ERes)--update
> >
> >
> >Hi Axel,
> >
> >Our E-reserve just uses PDF format. Last year this was really problematic
> >and we had to test the Acrobat 5.0 OCR plug-in (Paper Capture 3.0) which
> >was a unsuitable both to students and Library staff.
> >
> >This year we purchased Omnipage 11 which will OCR an image only PDF file
> >and we teach students to do this themselves. Its not always very accurate
> >depending on the quality of the original scanned material but it seems to
> >be working quite well.
> >
> >Trevor
> >
> >Trevor Wilks - Manager
> >Adaptive Technology Centre
> >Student Support Services
> >Student, Alumni and Community Services
> >University Services
> >Auchmuty Library
> >University of Newcastle
> >University Drive Callaghan
> >NSW 2308 Australia
> >Ph-02 49218684
> >Mobile-0418 753739
> >Fax-02 49217410
> >Email- [log in to unmask]