At 2:48 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Richard Heyes wrote:
>
>>>>I understand there are different reasons behind the use of CAPTCHA's, but
>>>>in the end they still present accessibility problems. And their use is a
>>>>trade-off that you accept.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would need to
>>>present accessibility problems.
>>
>>CAPTCHAs are intentionally not the easiest thing to read. If they
>>were, there wouldn't be a great deal of point having them.
>
>There are many forms of captcha's. The concept can easily be
>extended beyond the need to read something. You may want to read:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha


While you're at it, why don't you read it yourself.

The reference clearly says why your statement --

"Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would need to
present accessibility problems."

-- is nonsense.

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

At 2:51 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:56 PM, tedd wrote:
>
>>At 12:17 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:33 AM, tedd wrote:
>>>
>>>>I understand there are different reasons behind the use of
>>>>CAPTCHA's, but in the end they still present accessibility
>>>>problems. And their use is a trade-off that you accept.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would need
>>>to present accessibility problems.
>>
>>
>>No offense, but please look into it.
>
>
>You are welcome to explain, rather then just assert, what is
>inherent about the concept of a Captcha that would force
>accessibility problems upon a website.


Read your own reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

That says:

Accessibility
See also: Web accessibility
Because CAPTCHAs rely on visual perception, users unable to view a
CAPTCHA (for example, due to a disability or because it is difficult
to read) will be unable to perform the task protected by a CAPTCHA.
As such, sites implementing CAPTCHAs may provide an audio version of
the CAPTCHA in addition to the visual method. The official CAPTCHA
site recommends providing an audio CAPTCHA for accessibility reasons.

Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and easy to find?

Please do the reading before telling people such things are nonsense.

Cheers,

tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:11 PM, tedd wrote:

> At 2:48 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Richard Heyes wrote:
>>
>>>>> I understand there are different reasons behind the use of
>>>>> CAPTCHA's, but
>>>>> in the end they still present accessibility problems. And their
>>>>> use is a
>>>>> trade-off that you accept.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would
>>>> need to
>>>> present accessibility problems.
>>>
>>> CAPTCHAs are intentionally not the easiest thing to read. If they
>>> were, there wouldn't be a great deal of point having them.
>>
>> There are many forms of captcha's. The concept can easily be
>> extended beyond the need to read something. You may want to read:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
>
>
> While you're at it, why don't you read it yourself.
>
> The reference clearly says why your statement --
>
> "Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would need to
> present accessibility problems."
>
> -- is nonsense.

Where?

On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:15 PM, tedd wrote:

> At 2:51 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:56 PM, tedd wrote:
>>
>>> At 12:17 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:33 AM, tedd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I understand there are different reasons behind the use of
>>>>> CAPTCHA's, but in the end they still present accessibility
>>>>> problems. And their use is a trade-off that you accept.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would
>>>> need to present accessibility problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> No offense, but please look into it.
>>
>>
>> You are welcome to explain, rather then just assert, what is
>> inherent about the concept of a Captcha that would force
>> accessibility problems upon a website.
>
>
> Read your own reference:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
>
> That says:
>
> Accessibility
> See also: Web accessibility
> Because CAPTCHAs rely on visual perception, users unable to view a
> CAPTCHA (for example, due to a disability or because it is difficult
> to read) will be unable to perform the task protected by a CAPTCHA.
> As such, sites implementing CAPTCHAs may provide an audio version of
> the CAPTCHA in addition to the visual method. The official CAPTCHA
> site recommends providing an audio CAPTCHA for accessibility reasons.
>
> Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and easy
> to find?
>

So, I'm curious, what prevents a website from providing a good
implementation of both an audio and visual captcha to prevent
accessibility problems which you claim are impossible to avoid with
every use of a captcha?

Personally, my favorite implementation to date is:

http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html

and not only is it well designed, but all that brain power which goes
into solving captcha's goes into ing out with a very worthwhile
project.

Remember, the concept of a captcha is this:

A test to prove one is human in order perform some action.

There is no reason why a blind or deaf person absolutely cannot be
presented with such a test.

Now, if you wish to continue to argue to the contrary, you are more
then welcome to do so.

At 3:17 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:11 PM, tedd wrote:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
>>
>>
>>While you're at it, why don't you read it yourself.
>>
>>The reference clearly says why your statement --
>>
>>"Nonsense. There is no reason why the usage of Captcha's would need to
>>present accessibility problems."
>>
>>-- is nonsense.
>
>Where?

Is this a joke? Are we doing one of those "Who's on first" skits?

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

and look for what it says about accessibility.

And while you're at it, try reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_accessibility

Maybe then you'll start understanding the problems people with
certain disabilities have in navigating and using web sites.

Instead of calling all this nonsense, try to understand what's being discussed.

This ain't rocket science. It's not all that hard to understand.

Cheers,

tedd


--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On 29 Aug 2008, at 19:03, tedd wrote:
> At 5:06 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2008, at 16:33, tedd wrote:
>>> I didn't mean to imply laziness, but now that you mentioned it --
>>> on one hand we say that CAPTCHA is good enough until something
>>> else comes along, but on the other hand, because we are using
>>> CAPTCHA, there's no need to develop something else.
>>
>> I think this is very naive and coming from you tedd it surprises me.
>
> From my perspective, I think it naive to look at this in any other
> way.
>
> For example, how much time have you invested in finding a better
> way? I'm not pointing a finger at you and saying "You need to drop
> everything and come up with a solution before moving on." But I am
> saying that you are using a CAPTCHA until someone else comes up with
> a better way. Is that not true?
>
> So, in essence my statement above is not naive but rather factual.
> Factual is not naive.

Not at all. I spend a fair amount of time thinking about ways to make
my work more secure. I would hope that goes for most developers,
especially if they realise that a CAPTCHA is not 100% effective.
However, this is the way research works. Most people (i.e. the work-a-
day folk) spend most of their time making stuff. The few people who
are lucky enough to either work for a company that gives them time to
do research or actually does it for a living are the ones more likely
to hit upon a new solution.

I don't think this makes us lazy, or wrong, for continuing to use the
current tool - it makes us practical. If I have a eureka moment at any
point rest assured I will put some personal time aside to look into it
(as I have in other areas) and if something comes of it I'd publish it
on my blog.

So, in essence your statement is assumptive, judgemental and sweeping.
That's not factual.

>> Very few developers have time to put everything on hold because the
>> tools they have are not 100% effective - I certainly don't. I
>> really wish I did, but this is the real world where the almighty
>> pound is king. I'd love to see the faces at the next board meeting
>> when I say "no progress this month because we've been trying to
>> come up with something better than CAPTCHA's".
>
> You are missing the point. I'm not telling you to stop anything.
>
> I am saying -- however -- that we continue (myself included) to use
> technology that hurts others. That does not justify our actions --
> it only provides an excuse.

When you say it hurts others I assume you mean excludes users who, for
whatever reason, cannot pass the CAPTCHA test. I completely agree, but
as far as I know it's only (and I use that word carefully) people with
both visual and audio impairments that you cannot cater for. If you
could you'd render all CAPTCHA implementations I'm aware of pointless.

I completely agree that this is less than ideal, and I really don't
like preventing legitimate potential users from using my sites, but
I'd rather have a usable and clean (yes, most automated posts are
dirty in some way) site than one that nobody wants to use. This is a
choice we have to make otherwise there's no point creating the site at
all.

Holding my hand up now as a lazy developer, the CAPTCHA I have on my
sites is not accessible what with it being simply an image with no
audio alternative. We have plans to switch it to using recaptcha or
implement our own but in terms of priorities it's pretty low for my 2-
man team (myself included).

>> The best defence against dodgy inputs I've seen so far has been
>> having a good community on the site who pro-actively look for and
>> take action against it. Best example I can think of this late in
>> the day is Wikipedia.
>
> As I see it, I could be wrong, but that's just an example of
> "developers" who are not taking the easy way out, but rather trying
> to solve the problem by using something other than CAPTCHA, like the
> ones I posted earlier.

Yes and no. Wikipedia has its share of problems with spammers, but
they have such a large community of users who are willing and able to
put time into keeping the site clean it works. The same site with a
different type of user profile may not be able to work this way.

As far as it being down to the developer I think you're giving credit
where little is due. It's the user response to the completely open
nature of the original product that prevented them from having to
implement CAPTCHA's to prevent automated posting. Had the community of
users not been so proactive I don't doubt they would have ended up
using them.

> Look, we are not in disagreement -- I understand that you have
> deadlines and projects that can't be put on hold and all the other
> excuses you cite -- actually, so do I. But in the end, we are doing
> this at the cost of accessibility for others. We shouldn't lose
> sight of that.

I think we do disagree on a fundamental level. You think we've all
given up because we have CAPTCHA's, I believe in the innovative
potential of most developers. We're using CAPTCHA's a lot, and we're
doing it because none of us have come up with anything better yet, but
that certainly doesn't mean we've given up trying.

If your site is free to use I would modify your statement to say...

"CAPTCHA's show the world that you care about the quality of the
content on your site without needing to charge for its use, but
remember that we haven't given up trying to find a better way"

Not quite as catchy as yours, but more accurate. If people need to pay
to use your site then the need for CAPTCHA's is reduced but I'd argue
that in some cases they're still needed.

-Stut

--
http://stut.net/

On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:

> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
> word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
> you cannot cater for.


I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are human.

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:52 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:
>
> > I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
> > word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
> > you cannot cater for.
>
>
> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are human.

Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

At 8:41 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
>So, in essence your statement is assumptive, judgemental and sweeping.

I certainly did not mean it to be taken assumptive or judgmental.

---
>Holding my hand up now as a lazy developer, the CAPTCHA I have on my
>sites is not accessible what with it being simply an image with no
>audio alternative. We have plans to switch it to using recaptcha or
>implement our own but in terms of priorities it's pretty low for my
>2-man team (myself included).

If you ever want to add an audio CAPTCHA, I will provide mine. I have
done significant blind testing to get it approved by blind testers.

But, I say this from one developer to another and not to the general
public. When dealing with another developer, it's much less
problematic to share code because we speak a common language.

You see, I provide free things on my site, such as my drop-down menu,
and I have people daily failing to implement those correctly because
they cannot follow simple directions. I don't want to complicate my
life further without good reason.

---
>>As I see it, I could be wrong, but that's just an example of
>>"developers" who are not taking the easy way out, but rather trying
>>to solve the problem by using something other than CAPTCHA, like
>>the ones I posted earlier.
>
>Yes and no. Wikipedia has its share of problems with spammers, but
>they have such a large community of users who are willing and able
>to put time into keeping the site clean it works. The same site with
>a different type of user profile may not be able to work this way.
>
>As far as it being down to the developer I think you're giving
>credit where little is due.

That's the reason why I quoted "developer" -- the developer in this
case IS the user.

---

>I think we do disagree on a fundamental level. You think we've all
>given up because we haveCAPTCHA's, I believe in the innovative
>potential of most developers. We're using CAPTCHA's a lot, and we're
>doing it because none of us have come up with anything better yet,
>but that certainly doesn't mean we've given up trying.
>
>If your site is free to use I would modify your statement to say...
>
>"CAPTCHA's show the world that you care about the quality of the
>content on your site without needing to charge for its use, but
>remember that we haven't given up trying to find a better way"
>
>Not quite as catchy as yours, but more accurate. If people need to
>pay to use your site then the need for CAPTCHA's is reduced but I'd
>argue that in some cases they're still needed.

You bring up good points and I'm not so head-strong that I can't
listen and learn.

Is this better?

http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/

Cheers,

tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:52 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:
>>
>>> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
>>> word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
>>> you cannot cater for.
>>
>>
>> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
>> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are
>> human.
>
> Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha...sible_CAPTCHAs
discusses this.

And, I look forward to see what those doing research in this area come
up with in the future. It does seem obvious that since they are human,
that a good test can be designed which does not rely on security
through obscurity.

At 3:27 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:15 PM, tedd wrote:
>>Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and easy to find?
>
>So, I'm curious, what prevents a website from providing a good
>implementation of both an audio and visual captcha to prevent
>accessibility problems which you claim are impossible to avoid with
>every use of a captcha?


If you are curious, then please research it. There is plenty of documentation.

>Personally, my favorite implementation to date is:
>
> http://recaptcha.net/learnmore.html

Arrggg. I can't even pass it.

>and not only is it well designed,

It's designed well enough to keep me out and I'm neither deaf, blind,
nor whatever.


>Remember, the concept of a captcha is this:
>
> A test to prove one is human in order perform some action.

My memory is just fine, thank you.

At some point, you should do some reading on the subject.

Cheers,

tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On 29 Aug 2008, at 20:52, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:
>
>> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
>> word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
>> you cannot cater for.
>
>
> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are
> human.

Show me a test that you can read with a braille reader, that doesn't
assume more than minimal intelligence on the part of the user and that
cannot be easily parsed and answered programatically.

-Stut

--
http://stut.net/

At 4:21 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>>>I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
>>>impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are human.
>>
>>Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test.
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha...sible_CAPTCHAs
>discusses this.
>
>And, I look forward to see what those doing research in this area
>come up with in the future. It does seem obvious that since they are
>human, that a good test can be designed which does not rely on
>security through obscurity.

Maybe a blood test? Nope, that could be faked.

Back to thinking (ponder, ponder, ponder...)

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On 29 Aug 2008, at 21:21, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:52 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:
>>>
>>>> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
>>>> word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
>>>> you cannot cater for.
>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
>>> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are
>>> human.
>>
>> Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha...sible_CAPTCHAs
> discusses this.
>
> And, I look forward to see what those doing research in this area
> come up with in the future. It does seem obvious that since they are
> human, that a good test can be designed which does not rely on
> security through obscurity.

CAPTCHA's are *not* a security mechanism, no matter what Wikipedia
says. They do nothing more than protect from automated form
submissions. That's it.

Anyway, as that article states...

"Often, email or telephone support is used to manually provide access
to users who are unable to solve a CAPTCHA"

That's ultimate accessibility, assuming it supports all types of
telephone, but it's also a major expense needing 24/7 coverage. Not
something my company of 5 people could hope to support on a free-to-
use site.

-Stut

--
http://stut.net/

On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:21 PM, tedd wrote:

> At 3:27 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:15 PM, tedd wrote:
>>> Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and
>>> easy to find?
>>
>> So, I'm curious, what prevents a website from providing a good
>> implementation of both an audio and visual captcha to prevent
>> accessibility problems which you claim are impossible to avoid with
>> every use of a captcha?
>
> If you are curious, then please research it. There is plenty of
> documentation.

I am curious as to what your answer would be as I cannot find what
does not exist.

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 16:21 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:52 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote:
> >>
> >>> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I use that
> >>> word carefully) people with both visual and audio impairments that
> >>> you cannot cater for.
> >>
> >>
> >> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and audio
> >> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they are
> >> human.
> >
> > Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha...sible_CAPTCHAs
> discusses this.
>
> And, I look forward to see what those doing research in this area come
> up with in the future. It does seem obvious that since they are human,
> that a good test can be designed which does not rely on security
> through obscurity.

I said describe such a test... I didn't say describe current thoughts
about such a test that have no practical implementation.

Pay special attention to the word "practical" used above before shooting
something back off the top of your head.

Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP

At 9:32 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
>That's ultimate accessibility, assuming it supports all types of
>telephone, but it's also a major expense needing 24/7 coverage. Not
>something my company of 5 people could hope to support on a
>free-to-use site.
>
>-Stut

-Stut:

I hesitated before writing this because I don't want to get into
another debate with you, but accessibility means that all people
(disabled or not) can access the data they want in a similar fashion.

Accessibility does NOT mean "If you have a problem with our web site,
please call"

This is no different than any other accessibility issue. People in
wheelchairs should not have to call someone to get them over an
unaccessible curb or to be able to make their way to a product or
service, or anything else that could be made accessible to them by
some accommodating manner.

Do you not agree?

Cheers,

tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

At 4:37 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:21 PM, tedd wrote:
>
>>At 3:27 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:15 PM, tedd wrote:
>>>>Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and
>>>>easy to find?
>>>
>>>So, I'm curious, what prevents a website from providing a good
>>>implementation of both an audio and visual captcha to prevent
>>>accessibility problems which you claim are impossible to avoid
>>>with every use of a captcha?
>>
>>If you are curious, then please research it. There is plenty of
>>documentation.
>
>I am curious as to what your answer would be as I cannot find what
>does not exist.

There is more than enough documentation regarding accessibility issue
for you to find your answer. All you need to do is read.

Just because you had a run-in with me off-list where I apologized for
my comment does not mean that I won't repeat it publicly for everyone
to decide if what I said was appropriate or not -- your call.

As I see it, you're just being argumentative and playing word games
and I'm not going to play.

So either read-up on the subject and ask a honest question or I'll
stop answering your questions all together.

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com

On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, tedd wrote:

> At 4:37 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:21 PM, tedd wrote:
>>
>>> At 3:27 PM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
>>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:15 PM, tedd wrote:
>>>>> Why should I have to explain something that is widely known and
>>>>> easy to find?
>>>>
>>>> So, I'm curious, what prevents a website from providing a good
>>>> implementation of both an audio and visual captcha to prevent
>>>> accessibility problems which you claim are impossible to avoid
>>>> with every use of a captcha?
>>>
>>> If you are curious, then please research it. There is plenty of
>>> documentation.
>>
>> I am curious as to what your answer would be as I cannot find what
>> does not exist.
>
> There is more than enough documentation regarding accessibility
> issue for you to find your answer. All you need to do is read.

There is no documentation anywhere which claims, as you do, that it is
impossible to design a captcha which deals with accessibility issues.
It has been done and the research into doing it better continues -
even with those who are both blind and deaf.


So, again, remember, the concept of a captcha is this:

A test to prove one is human in order perform some action.

There is no reason why a blind or deaf person absolutely cannot be
presented with such a test. Now, if you wish to continue to argue to
the contrary, you are more then welcome to do so.

tedd schreef:
> At 9:32 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
>> That's ultimate accessibility, assuming it supports all types of
>> telephone, but it's also a major expense needing 24/7 coverage. Not
>> something my company of 5 people could hope to support on a
>> free-to-use site.
>>
>> -Stut
>
> -Stut:
>
> I hesitated before writing this because I don't want to get into another
> debate with you, but accessibility means that all people (disabled or
> not) can access the data they want in a similar fashion.
>
> Accessibility does NOT mean "If you have a problem with our web site,
> please call"
>
> This is no different than any other accessibility issue. People in
> wheelchairs should not have to call someone to get them over an
> unaccessible curb or to be able to make their way to a product or
> service, or anything else that could be made accessible to them by some
> accommodating manner.
>
> Do you not agree?

yes and no. in the wild a lion with hip atrophy will be forced to
crawl away and die ... no more eating gazelles for him, more to the point
there are millions (billions?) of people without the right to free speech
, or say clean water let alone have the money for a PC or an internet
connection.

my point being we have a long long long way to go before we can say
much positive about accessibility for everyone.

I think both tedd and Stut make good points, I guess we'll all be
hacking away at such issues for a long time to come.

in the mean time, here's wishing more clean water and internet access
for everyone (and less bombs).

>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd

Eric Gorr schreef:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, tedd wrote:
>

....

> There is no documentation anywhere which claims, as you do, that it is
> impossible to design a captcha which deals with accessibility issues.

a lack of evidence proving the impossible ... there is a logic flaw
there somewhere.

> It
> has been done and the research into doing it better continues - even
> with those who are both blind and deaf.
>
>
> So, again, remember, the concept of a captcha is this:
>
> A test to prove one is human in order perform some action.

so orthogonal to the turing test ... I'd wager that research in
turing test passing technology is moving faster that captcha tech.

so in the long run captcha is plain dead in the water.

really the basic concept of captcha is this:

A test to prove that the interacting agent is legitimate,
whether it be Bot, Cat, Human or otherwise.

oh, and nobody's yet mentioned that anyone can bust any captcha
on an automated scale without any programming intelligence, it
takes nothing more than a setting up a pr0n affliate site with
a redirector form that sneakily grabs captcha images from whatever
the target of the day is ... and in such a case you'd be quite happy
if someone's bot came along a repeated cracked "your" captcha

>
> There is no reason why a blind or deaf person absolutely cannot be
> presented with such a test. Now, if you wish to continue to argue to the
> contrary, you are more then welcome to do so.

on behalf of the list, please accept our "Crayon of the Week" award.

>

Eric Gorr schreef:
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Jochem Maas wrote:
>
>> Eric Gorr schreef:
>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, tedd wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> There is no documentation anywhere which claims, as you do, that it
>>> is impossible to design a captcha which deals with accessibility issues.
>>
>> a lack of evidence proving the impossible ... there is a logic flaw
>> there somewhere.
>
> Considering that it has been done, why do you assert anyone would claim
> (such as tedd), who wants to remain credible, that it hasn't? Do you
> wish to make such a claim?
>

.... huh? I really can't even be bothered to try and grok this nonsense of yours.

real trolls use less pronouns.

PS. I a lot less kind than tedd, I bounce everything straight back to the
list if you try to tackle me offlist ... If I wanna pick a fight I'll do it
in public, I have no shame ... I'm dutch.

On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:39, Jochem Maas wrote:
> in the mean time, here's wishing more clean water and internet access
> for everyone (and less bombs).

Hear hear, except that I'd put food above internet access.

-Stut

--
http://stut.net/

On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote:
> At 9:32 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
>> That's ultimate accessibility, assuming it supports all types of
>> telephone, but it's also a major expense needing 24/7 coverage. Not
>> something my company of 5 people could hope to support on a free-to-
>