It's incredibly accurate. Does it handle crooked pages too? Is it cross platform and device agnostic? Is it free?
I use a variety of free online OCR tools like newocr.com. Or upload to Google Docs and use its inbuilt OCR tech. But between the pagewise pasting, cursory checking and tables, I sometimes think it would be faster to just type the whole thing! I wish we could work out a system to coordinate efforts so as to prevent duplication. Any ideas? On Friday, May 1, 2015, avinash shahi <[email protected]> wrote: > Many thanks mam for your hard efforts for converting the text for > print impaired people > > Kurzweil is a software through which one could convert images into > text. This software is my lifeline. > On 5/1/15, Vaishnavi Jayakumar <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Dear Avinash, > > > > Where did you source a text version of this document? The MSJE document > is > > a pdf with images. > > > > I just spent the whole morning transcribing this and the ISLRTC document > > and am cursing because my morning was a waste! > > > > Vaishnavi > > > > avinash shahi > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22avinash+shahi%22 > > > > Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:50:34 -0700 > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20150430 > > > > > > Having repeatedly perusing the minutes of the meeting,I feel there is a > > consensus emerging among the babus for thwarting the substantive > objectives > > of the existing comprehensive guidelines. Read below to know what > mediocre > > arguments was put forward by the UPSC and other bodies to modify the > > guidelines. Let us all converge and take resolve on one salient point > that > > Invigilation is the crux and the thrust of the guidelines which should be > > strengthened. No arbitrary tempering,please. They say it is impracticable > > to provide questionpaper in Braille. What a tardy response exposing their > > political illwill. Can somebody inform UPSC that the UGC provides > > questionpapers in Braille all over India in NET exams. And questionpaper > is > > not leaked? Why cant they do so? questionpaper will not be leaked as they > > fear. Secondly, they say qualification of the scribe should be > > lowered,that's non-negotiable isn't it? Anyway, its very crucial time for > > all of us and hope we remain united and alert in whatever strategy we > > adopt. Rungta sir,and NFB lets keep the fire on until the issue is not > > resolved for one and all. Below is the minutes of the meeting,those want > to > > read PDF could visit MSJE website. Minutes of the preliminary discussions > > of the Expert Committee to review the Guidelines for conducting Written > > Examination for PwDs held under the Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD on > > 13,04.2015 at 04:00 PM in the Conference Room, 5th Floor, Paryavaran > > Bhawan, New Delhi The List of Participants is at Annexure. 2. Secretary, > > DEPwD welcomed the participants and requested Joint Secretary, DEPwD to > > briefly explain the background of constitution of the expert Committee > and > > the agenda to be discussed in the meeting. 3. Joint Secretary, DEPwD > stated > > that on the basis of the recommendations of Chief Commissioner of Persons > > with Disabilities, the Ministry had issued detailed guidelines for > > conducting examination for Persons with Disabilities on 26th February, > > 2013. The guidelines inter-alia include provision for scribe/reader/lab > > assistant, grant of extra time to the extent of 20 minutes per hour of > > examination, option of choosing mode of taking examination in Braille or > in > > computer or in large print etc. Recently, UPSC has raised certain issues > > relating to practical implementation of the guidelines. UPSC has said > that > > their comments on the draft guidelines communicated in 2008 were not > > considered. UPSC now has raised the issue of allowing private scribes > > especially while taking main examinations (other than multiple type > > question based examination), practicality of allowing question paper in > > Braille etc. The issues raised by UPSC were also discussed in a meeting > > held with DoPT when Chairman UPSC was also present. Staff Selection > > Commission has also raised similar observations. In order to look into > the > > practical implementation issues raised by UPSC, SSC etc. an expert > > Committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD has been > constituted. > > UPSC has now brought a detailed note outlining their observations on > > implementation of these guidelines for consideration of the Expert > > Committee. He further stated that the Committee was also required to > decide > > the associations/experts to represent different disability associations > > namely visual impairment, hearing impairment and locomotor disabilities > in > > the Expert Committee. He also brought to the notice of the Committee to > the > > fact that the Department has received representations requesting > nomination > > of experts for the cause of other disabilities such as Autism Spectrum > > Disorder, Specific Learning Disabilities, and Speech Impairment etc. 4. > > Secretary DEPwD requested representative from UPSC to briefly explain the > > problem being faced by them in implementing the guidelines. 5. The > > representatives from UPSC submitted that they are allowing scribes as per > > the choice of the candidates for multiple choice question based > examination > > such as ICS preliminary examination. However, in case of main examination > > which is especially of descriptive type they are allowing only Government > > scribes through their centre coordinators. They stated that the > discretion > > to the candidates to opt for own scribe/reader would have an impact on > the > > integrity of the examination process as the candidate may bring a scribe > > who is more proficient than him and who could improve the content of the > > answers. The Commission has also received representations alleging > > malpractices by the Candidates who had been permitted to have their own > > scribes. The Commission was of the view that no amount of invigilation > > could effectively obviate such malpractices in a descriptive type of > > examination. The representatives from UPSC further stated that the > > possibility of aspersions being cast in the public domain about the > > performance of such candidates (who is allowed to use his own scribe) > even > > if the candidate qualified the examination on merit could not be ruled > out. > > They have further stated that the commission has no resource to identify > > the scribes for making panels at the district/division/state level. At > > present, the scribes are being arranged through the coordinating > > supervisors who are nominated by the concerned State Governments. UPSC > was > > of the view that the Government's scribes are governed by conduct rules > and > > thereby the chances of malpractice through them is minimised. 6. As > regards > > the issue of doing away with fixation of any criteria for the scribe, > > representative of UPSC stated that there should be certain eligibility > > criteria like educational qualification for the scribe so as to preclude > > the use of scribe who is more qualified and has the ability to improve > the > > performance of the candidate which would tantamount to malpractice. > > Further, they have stated that at present the Commission has been > arranging > > for two scribes for each eligible candidate keeping in view any aspect of > > emergency and also an option for the candidate to select one out of the > two > > scribes. Allowing candidates more than one own scribe/ reader may also > have > > impact on integrity of the examination process since the candidate would > > tend to bring subject specific specialists as scribe for different exam > > papers. 7. With regard to the provisions in the guidelines allowing the > > candidates to choose the mode of taking examination in Braille or on > > computer or in large print, allowing assistive devices like talking > > calculator etc, the representative from UPSC submitted that these rules > not > > only involve logistical . issues but may also have the potential for > > representations/ complaints/litigations on the grounds of the alleged > > unsatisfactory hardware/printout/recording devices etc. Providing > question > > paper in Braille or in Computer in addition to the printed version is > > likely to have involvement of multiple agencies and thereby impinge on > the > > confidentiality of question papers, which in turn could have adverse > impact > > on the examination process. 8. The representative of UPSC drew the > > attention of Committee to the order of Hon'ble High Court of judicature > at > > Bombay dated 19.08.2014 in W.P. No. 5953 of 2014 in the matter of Shri > > Sujit Shinde and another Versus UPSC and other. In this order, the > Hon'ble > > High Court has taken note of the fact that UPSC has justified its stand > of > > prescribing its maximum educational qualification which a scribe can > > possess. In the preliminary examination which has an objective type test, > > where the correct answer from 4 alternatives is required to be marked by > > shading the appropriate circle therefore, a scribe should be able to read > > Hindi/English versions of the questions effectively. Therefore, a scribe > of > > who is of graduate or undergraduate level can effectively assist the > > visually challenged candidate. 9. The representative of UPSC desired to > > know as to whether the alternative objective question in lieu of > > descriptive questions for hearing impaired person is recommending or > > mandatory in nature. JS, DEPwD clarified that all the provisions of the > > guidelines including para XV which deals with this aspect are mandatory. > > 10. The member SSC stated that the examinations conducted by SSC are > mostly > > based on multiple choice question papers. They allow only Government > > scribes through their exam centre coordinators. SSC was of the view that > > allowing private scribes even for multiple choice answers would have > impact > > on the integrity of the examination process. SSC was in agreement with > the > > submission of UPSC relating to other issues such as fixation of criteria > > for the scribe, provision for choice of taking examination in Braille, > > allowing assistive devices etc. 11. Shri T.D. Dhariyal, former Dy. CCPD > and > > present Consultant in the Office of CCPD has intimated that the process > of > > framing of policy guidelines for conducting examination of PwDs was > > initiated in 2001 -02 in consultation with Ministry of Human Resource 85 > > Development and DoPT. As both the Agencies did not issue any guidelines, > > O/o CCPD took up the issues based on number of representations received > by > > it. The stakeholders were of the view that there should not be any > criteria > > such as the qualification of the scribe should be one class below the > > minimum required educational qualification for the examination. After > > prolonged consultations the Commission was of the view that no fixed > > criteria should be there for selection of scribe and the scribe is to be > > for all class of PwDs whose writing capacity or speed is affected. > > Subsequently the recommendations were sent to the Ministry for framing of > > guidelines. 12. Director, IPH submitted that it would be appropriate if > > UPSC on their own analyse the scenario taking into account number of > cases > > where scribes were used, number of PwDs selected using such scribes, > > qualification of scribes, number of complaints received against such > > scribes etc. and submit a detailed justification for consideration of > > Committee. 13. Representative from Department of Higher Education > submitted > > that the Ministry of HRD on its own does not have expertise to comment on > > the relevant aspects. He suggested that representatives from UGC, AICTE > and > > CBSE may be co-opted as members so as to make the deliberations of > > Committee more meaningful. 14. Director, NIHH suggested that no criteria > > for the scribe should be prescribed rather the invigilation process > should > > be strengthen to take care of any perceived malpractices during > examination > > process. 15. After detailed deliberations, the following decisions were > > taken: i. The office of CCPD will submit a detailed documentation on > > framing of the guidelines containing the range of issues raised on each > > aspects, how the recommendations were finalised etc. ii. UPSC will submit > > detailed justification for seeking modifications in the guidelines taking > > into account number of cases where scribes were used, number of PwDs > > selected using such scribes, qualification of scribes, number of > complaints > > received regarding use of such scribes (both government and private) etc. > > iii. Representatives from UGC, AICTE and CBSE may also be coopted as > > members of the Expert Committee. Department of Higher Education will > > expedite the process of nomination of these agencies. iv. The following > may > > be nominated to represent various class of PwDs in the Committee:- Class > of > > Disability Nominated Member a Visual Impairment (i) Ms. Kanchan Pamnani > > (ii) Shri S.K. Rungta, National Federation of Blind. Hearing Impairment > (i) > > Mrs. Snigdha Sarkar, Secretary, ANWESHA (ii) Prof. S andhya Limay e, > Centre > > of Disability Studies and Activities, Mumbai /. Locomotor Disabilities > Shri > > Komal Kabra, Khalsa College, Delhi University Mental Impairment Ms > Nirmala > > Srinivasan 16. The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the chair. *** ** > > ** ********* ** Minutes of the Preliminary Discussion of Expert Committee > > to review the Guidelines for conducting examination for PwDs held under > the > > Chairmanship of Secretary, DEPwD on 13.04.2015 at 04:00 PM LIST OF > > PARTICIPANTS 1. Shri Low Verma, Secretary, DEPwD in chair 2. Shri Awanish > > K. Awasthi, Joint Secretary, DEPwD 3. Ms Archana Verma, Joint Secretary, > > DoPT 4. Shri R.K. Arora, Additional Secretary, UPSC 5. Shri Sanjay > > Mehrishi, Joint Secretary, UPSC 6. Shri Chetan Prakash Jain, Member, SSC > 7. > > Dr. Dharmendra Kumar, Director, IPH 8. Dr. A.K. Sinha, Director, AYJNIHH > 9. > > Shri T.D. Dhariyal, Consultant, O/o CCPD 10. Shri Davinder Pal Singh, > > Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human > > Resource 85 Development 11. Shri D.K. Panda, Under Secretary, DEPwD -- > > Avinash Shahi Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU > > Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility > of > > mobile phones / Tabs on: > > > http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > Search for old postings at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To > unsubscribe > > send a message to [email protected] <javascript:;> > with the subject > > unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other > > changes, please visit the list home page at > > > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the > > thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself > to > > its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission > based > > on the mails sent through this mailing list.. > > > > Previous message > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97482.html > >View > > by thread > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/index.html#97485 > >View > > by date > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html#97485 > >Next > > message > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97486.html> > > > > *Reply via email to* > > > > The Mail Archive home <https://www.mail-archive.com/>accessindia - all > > messages > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > >accessindia > > - about the list > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/info.html> > > Expand > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5C%5BAI%5C%5D+Important%5C%3A+Minutes+of+the+preliminary+discussions+of+the+Expert+Committee+to+review+the+Guidelines+for+conducting+Written+Examination+for+PwDs%22&o=newest&f=1 > >Previous > > message > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97482.html > >Next > > message > > < > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg97486.html> > > > > The Mail Archive home <https://www.mail-archive.com/> Add your mailing > list > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#newlist> FAQ > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html> Support > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#support> Privacy > > <https://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#privacy> > > CADeSQ2i=vvPsoZazeD92JsmURkrbjvQ=k1shttqijh7mwnu...@mail.gmail.com > <javascript:;> > > > > > -- > Avinash Shahi > Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU > -- http://about.me/vjayakumar Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
