|
Hi
Walter et al- We
at Yale were involved in the Microsoft Project and the Preservation Department
created some guidelines (a checklist basically) determining which books could
or could not go to be scanned by Kirtas. They used a robotic scanning device.
Responses in Yale blue below ;) 1.
Were decisions to withdraw items from the scanning queue made subjectively or
were specific criteria applied? Were condition evaluations made in
advance of project start-up or as the project progressed? Our
project is a mass scanning project purely for access. No physical items are
being withdrawn, or even moving from the library they currently reside. We
wanted to ensure that as little damage as possible would occur to our materials
during the process. We
had a set of criteria that we predetermined before the project began. These
criteria are (taken from our guidelines given to those selecting the materials
to be scanned): Below
are a series of questions or statements to go through to make certain that the
book is able to go through the digitization process without damage. If the
answer is YES/ TRUE to any of the questions or statements below, it
should remain on the shelf and be excluded from the digitization process.
1)
Are the book covers
loose or detached? 2)
The book falls outside
the guides on the sizing template (larger than 11”x 14”). 3)
Is the imprint or
copyright date after 1923? 4)
The book cannot
open to the same angle as the sizing template (120º). (sizing template is a
book cradle that we had made) 5)
Are there more than
5 pages loose or detached? ** 6)
Are there more than
10 foldouts? ** 7)
Are there more than
10 pages with “onion skin” overlays? ** 8)
Are there a number
of pages stuck together? 9)
Is the book severely
warped or deformed? 10)
Is the text so far
into the gutter of the book that it cannot be read easily? **If you find one of
these, please insert a blue flag in the location of the FIRST instance of the
issues. You do not have to flag every instance in the book. We
reviewed the first batches being scanned to make sure the guidelines were being
followed and damage was not occurring due to scanning. There were some
instances (7% in the first return) but it has dramatically reduced since the
project has progressed. Because
the incidences of damage have reduced and in order to have more material
scanned, these criteria have loosened up some. We are allowing loose pages,
foldouts and onion skin overlays to go as those items are scanned by hand on
the Kirtas machine. One
of the major obstacles for our collection is the amount of brittle and oversewn
materials that we have. These cannot be scanned due to openability restrictions
and the pages breaking off in the gutter. We gave an additional handout with
illustrations to assist folks with spotting these types of books specifically.
I attach it to this message. 2.
If a robotic scanning device was used: (a) were only items considered to be in good enough
condition for scanning on the robotic device digitized? Yes, but our vendor has made some exceptions to how scanning
would be handled in some situations. For
example, we will allow materials with loose pages to go to be scanned, provided
the scanning operator scans the loose pages by hand. (b) were some items scanned on the device with the robotic device
disabled – if so approximately what percent were selected for manual page
turning? What criteria were used to decide this? We do not have data that determines how many items needed hand
page turning. Considering the condition of our collections, I would guess maybe
10-20%. (c) were two dual-camera machines used (one for robotic, one for
manual page turning with the robotic device disabled)? The same machine could be used for both. The robotic element
would be switched off to perform hand turning. 3.
What options were considered for items perceived to be at risk of damage
whether the robotic device was used or pages were turned manually?
(a) do not scan?
At risk
items are not scanned. Now at this point this is oversewn brittle materials and
materials that cannot be opened at least 120 degrees.
(b) scan on an alternate device with book cradle?
4.
What options were considered for fold-outs?
(a) do not scan?
Originally
it was do not scan but this has now changed. Foldouts are scanned by hand as
they appear in the book.
(b) scan on an alternate device? 5.
If one or more separate workflows were developed for any reason (foldouts; risk
of damage on dual camera device; entire volume too large or small for scanning
with the dual camera device, etc.), was the scanning done on-site or shipped to
an alternate site? Scanning
was completed on site. If anyone has
any questions, please feel free to contact me or Ian Bogus at ian.bogus@xxxxxxxx Thanks! Tara *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ |