Judith Bron wrote: "I’m not debating the effectiveness of captias for the desired effect, I’m just wondering why we have to be excluded because of our disability. Everyone is petrified about hurting the feelings of people who harbor terrorists in their community but blind people just swallow hard and keep on smiling."
I will simply say that I believe that this statement is highly emotionally driven (and justifiably so) but largely unfair. Captchas came about to address a significant need, a very significant need, but not enough thought went in to them, particularly the original non-audio version, with regard to accessibility. However, accessibility was not what they were designed to address and the issue they did address had reached critical mass. I'm not applauding Captchas, I'm not saying Captchas should stay, but I do find it amazing that, even recognizing what a complete barrier they can be, that if you "do the math" regarding what they stopped (and having entire websites such as Amazon crash and burn with ease from a single hacker was one of those things) that it does not become abundantly clear why the choices that were made were indeed made. It has nothing to do with an entity being for or against accessibility. It comes down to the fact that what needs to be prevented is more critical to them at a given point in time than an accessibility barrier that affects a very small percentage of their overall customer base. It's dollars and cents, and dollars and sense, in looking at how it affects the really big picture as far as that entity is concerned. It's not personal, it's not targeted, it's a balancing of needs under a set of constraints when those needs were being considered.
