Here’s a weird problem. In Bloom when I insert an image from Art of Reading 3.3, in the lower left hand corner of the image there is a straight double quote character.
This appears on all of the images, but on some images of higher resolution it is very small and hardly noticeable. This is for a workshop, and I haven’t yet checked on many other computers. I was thinking maybe the problem was a version issue - we were asked to use Bloom 4.0.8 (to correspond with documentation), and we are using AOR 3.3, but I noticed that it was only in Bloom 4.1 that the new licensing of AOR 3.3 was taken into account. But when I updated Bloom to 4.1.5, I see the same problem. A colleague here who has an older version of AOR doesn’t have this problem. But I have now checked on 3 computers that use AOR 3.3, and they all have this problem. Can others confirm this? Is this a problem with AOR 3.3? At a quick glance I couldn’t find the AOR picture database to check the source files to see if the apostrophes are there (I can’t imagine that they would be), but the apostrophes are really there in Bloom, and are there when I print out the book as well. Thanks for your input.
Wow, I was wrong. I found the AOR picture database at C:\ProgramData\SIL\ImageCollections\Art Of Reading\images, and when I open those images in IrfanView, they all have an apostrophe in the lower left corner. Was that done intentionally?! That’s not very helpful…
So who is responsible for AOR images, and can they verify that the images in 3.3 got corrupted with these apostrophes in their original copies? I seem to recall that AOR images now have some additional copyright info embedded, maybe in the EXIF data? So was it this process that introduced the corruption somehow? And I imagine it’s not a simple process of reverting to the previous versions, since then you would lose all of this new copyright info. How can we make sure that this info gets to the proper people, or are you taking care of that, John? Thanks.
Super, thanks. I don’t think any of the local participants in the course even noticed it, but I’ve got this attention to detail thing, and I very much look forward to having a corrected version of the database…
Wow, you guys are fast! That’s very helpful. But I question the wisdom of distributing this corrected version as v3.3. Wouldn’t it be better to distribute it as v3.4, or 3.3.1, to differentiate it from v3.3 which is already out there “in the wild”?
