This one time, at band camp, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I fixed the errors you spoke about except I could never get the
Graphic CAPTCHA to fail.
Also, you're supposed to click the accessibility icon to get the
page to speak the number.
What if the user is deaf and blind? they are
At 5:37 PM +1000 9/14/08, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, you're supposed to click the accessibility icon to get the
page to speak the number.
What if the user is deaf and blind? they are denied access?
Kevin
Kevin:
For deaf-blind
Not so good if you're using lynx, or if you're blind, I guess.
I often tell my clients the reasons for accessibility and usually i
get the answer We don't have any blind customers so we don't care
about them. So much for fair play in the web.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:28:27 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 11:14 AM +0200 9/1/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Some of these are really cool. Assuming they are
actually working, that is...
-snip-
At 12:43 AM -0700 9/12/08, Yeti wrote:
I often tell my clients the reasons for accessibility and usually i
get the answer We don't have any blind customers so we don't care
about them.
Statements like that demonstrate ignorance more than anything else.
If they actually knew the potential the
Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:14 AM +0200 9/1/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Some of these are really cool. Assuming they are
actually working, that is...
-snip- (bunch of
At 11:14 AM +0200 9/1/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Some of these are really cool. Assuming they are
actually working, that is...
-snip- (bunch of errors)
I managed 1 out of 5. What do I
tedd wrote:
At 11:14 AM +0200 9/1/08, Nisse =?utf-8?Q?Engstr=C3=B6m?= wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Some of these are really cool. Assuming they are
actually working, that is...
-snip- (bunch of errors)
I managed 1 out of
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Some of these are really cool. Assuming they are
actually working, that is...
Graphic CAPTCHA:
Error!
Reload the page!
Audio CAPTCHA:
--
There is nothing to
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:14:39 +0200, Nisse Engström wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:11:01 -0400, tedd wrote:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Performance CAPTCHA:
This one actually works. Well, sort of...
And maybe your code should check for a circle rather
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1835
That was great.
Human captcha resolvers.
$2 per 1000 resloved captchas...
ouch...
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 15:02 +0100, Stut wrote:
On 30 Aug 2008, at 14:05, tedd wrote:
At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
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.
That's the nature of the beast (no
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 10:17 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button.
Yeah, he's a lot like his blow-up dolls except you can't deflate him. :-)
WHOOA... my blow-up dolls? Since when did
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 19:22 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd schreef:
At 3:25 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people
can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human who
can get them past the check without
Well, I don't know how, but google folks @ gmail are doing a great job
with anti-spam tecnology... i believe that is has something to do with
the massive user base that can more accuratly say what is spam and
blacklist it plus mispelling 'spam' words and the original ones, plus
that '1000's from
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:35:42 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
[...] As Stut has
pointed out already, the best filter for spam I've encountered is to
reject posts with links :/
This also is what works for me. However, this is for commercial
websites, not blogs / forums, so links are not expected in
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:58 +0100, Diogo Neves wrote:
Well, I don't know how, but google folks @ gmail are doing a great job
with anti-spam tecnology... i believe that is has something to do with
the massive user base that can more accuratly say what is spam and
blacklist it plus mispelling
Maybe a protocol of SPAM notifications can do da trick...
Something like a system, more or less central that smtp server should
use to exchange information about SPAM, like that u get not only the
gmail base, but a yet bigger set off it... that whould do the trick,
and possible take the internet
At 9:52 AM +0300 8/31/08, Sancar Saran wrote:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1835
That was great.
Human captcha resolvers.
$2 per 1000 resloved captchas...
ouch...
At least I know where I can find work. :-)
Just an example of how the human element can out-smart itself.
Cheers,
At 5:35 AM -0400 8/31/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
and we may end up employing full on measures of the likes
of spamassasin once CAPTCHA becomes more weak to automated attacks.
Cheers,
Rob.
Agreed -- that's where I think this is all going.
The CAPTCHA solution is not THE solution and it's
At 5:39 AM -0400 8/31/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 10:17 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button.
Yeah, he's a lot like his blow-up dolls except you can't deflate him. :-)
At 10:58 AM +0100 8/31/08, Diogo Neves wrote:
Well, I don't know how, but google folks @ gmail are doing a great job
with anti-spam tecnology... i believe that is has something to do with
the massive user base that can more accuratly say what is spam and
blacklist it plus mispelling 'spam' words
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:46 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 5:39 AM -0400 8/31/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 10:17 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button.
Yeah, he's a lot like his
I guess I'll chime in with my experience on this problem. For the
past 2 years I've been using a form processor script I wrote on all
the client sites for my company. I developed it at first to handle a
simple set of functionality that hit 90% of the requirements of
contact forms. It can handle
Good points all, but I'd add two more from my own collection...
Field names
Don't name fields things like name, email, address, postcode, message,
etc. Instead name them a, b, c, d, e, etc but name your hidden field
email. That should provoke most bots into changing that value and
leaves
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 18:49 +0100, Stut wrote:
Good points all, but I'd add two more from my own collection...
Field names
Don't name fields things like name, email, address, postcode, message,
etc. Instead name them a, b, c, d, e, etc but name your hidden field
email. That should
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Stut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good points all, but I'd add two more from my own collection...
Field names
Don't name fields things like name, email, address, postcode, message, etc.
Instead name them a, b, c, d, e, etc but name your hidden field email. That
tedd schreef:
At 10:58 AM +0100 8/31/08, Diogo Neves wrote:
Well, I don't know how, but google folks @ gmail are doing a great job
with anti-spam tecnology... i believe that is has something to do with
the massive user base that can more accuratly say what is spam and
blacklist it plus
Robert Cummings schreef:
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:46 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 5:39 AM -0400 8/31/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 10:17 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button.
Yeah,
Stut schreef:
Good points all, but I'd add two more from my own collection...
nice posts, both of you! it's time I rewrote my general form submission
routines ... I'll be taking all your suggestions and putting them into
practice (in so far as I don't do so already).
free specs for better
On 31 Aug 2008, at 22:17, Jochem Maas wrote:
Robert Cummings schreef:
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 10:46 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 5:39 AM -0400 8/31/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 10:17 -0400, tedd wrote:
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:25:52 -0400, Eric Butera wrote:
[...]
Honey Pots
This is a two step process. First I have a hidden form field that has
a specific value in it. If this value is tampered with, then I reject
the form. The second form field is inside of an html comment. If
that value is
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:49:15 +0100, Stut wrote:
Field names
Don't name fields things like name, email, address, postcode, message,
etc. Instead name them a, b, c, d, e, etc but name your hidden field
email. That should provoke most bots into changing that value and
leaves others unsure what
Ross McKay schreef:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:49:15 +0100, Stut wrote:
Field names
Don't name fields things like name, email, address, postcode, message,
etc. Instead name them a, b, c, d, e, etc but name your hidden field
email. That should provoke most bots into changing that value and
Jochem Maas wrote:
any idea as to whether auto-fill can recognize stuff like:
foo[email] or email[foo] or email_foo
[...]
AFAIK, the auto-fill form stuff works off previously entered field
names. If a user enters their email address into a field called 'email'
on one site, then another
Ross McKay schreef:
Jochem Maas wrote:
any idea as to whether auto-fill can recognize stuff like:
foo[email] or email[foo] or email_foo
[...]
AFAIK, the auto-fill form stuff works off previously entered field
names. If a user enters their email address into a field called 'email'
on
Jochem Maas wrote:
figures, no blooming good to us then :-)
No, I wouldn't bother! (It actually p!sses me off when I have to type my
email address into a form because they've decided to pick some unique
name for the field!)
makes me think of another trick to block spam/cruft/etc from
form
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote:
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.
Why hesitate?
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:00, tedd wrote:
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote:
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
At 11:51 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
Eric Gorr schreef:
There is no documentation anywhere which claims, as you do, that it
is impossible to design a captcha which deals with accessibility
issues.
on behalf of the list, please accept our Crayon of the Week award.
Oh, and please
On 30 Aug 2008, at 05:32, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:25 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:19 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
Oh, here's an interesting story:
At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd schreef:
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
I hope I don't get finger atrophy.
---
my point being we have a long long long way to go
At 11:51 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
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.
I agree with that.
Creating a better captcha is a losing
At 12:14 AM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
I have no shame ... I'm dutch.
That's obvious. :-)
Rhetorical
What we (i.e., USA Government) needs to do is to get you people (yeah
I said you people) down to New Orleans to teach us how to make a
dike. Seriously, your countrymen are the
Oh look, you forgot to include the list again.
On 30 Aug 2008, at 13:54, Eric Gorr wrote:
On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Stut wrote:
Eric...
1) Quoting an NYT blog as an authority on technical matters is both
naive and asking for it. The mainstream press have never used
industry-specific
At 11:56 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
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
Yep, right up there with health care
Robert Cummings schreef:
...
using bots to crack Google’s captchas.
I really don't see how this story supports your arguments in the least
and as such I will not be answering anymore of your drivel. You appear
to have nothing of usefulness to add to the conversation.
I didn't think it
Jim Lucas schreef:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:01 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
No, I will not help you troll. But, I certainly cannot prevent you
from doing so.
Hopefully the list moderators will shut you down.
This is PHP General. We discuss PHP and related issues.
On 30 Aug 2008, at 14:05, tedd wrote:
At 11:39 PM +0200 8/29/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
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.
That's the nature of the beast (no not Stut!)
I am Stut - hear me Roar!!
CAPTCHA's are
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
On 29 Aug 2008, at 22:07, tedd wrote:
Do you not agree?
Sort of. I think most disabled people accept that they are different
and that special provisions sometimes need to be made. In this case
I would hope people would understand that the current
At 12:32 AM -0400 8/30/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:25 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
Please, would all of the other readers of this mailing list write
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and ask them to shut Robert Cummings down? Thank you.
I'm sorry list *lol* But this one made me
At 3:27 PM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
2. you can't shut him down either, he does'nt have an off button.
Yeah, he's a lot like his blow-up dolls except you can't deflate him. :-)
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP
On 30 Aug 2008, at 15:02, tedd wrote:
At 12:05 AM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
To me accessibility means that everyone is able to use something to
achieve a goal regardless of their physical or mental condition.
Nothing about it says that everyone should be able to reach that
goal without
At 3:25 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people
can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human
who can get them past the check without compromising the protection
the check affords is ultimate accessibility.
Well,
tedd schreef:
At 3:25 PM +0100 8/30/08, Stut wrote:
in the meantime I stand by my assertion that a 'phone number people
can call with any type of telephone to interact with another human who
can get them past the check without compromising the protection the
check affords is ultimate
Has anyone tried a ASCII Captcha method. To use a similar method like
this ASCII generator (http://www.network-science.de/ascii/)
Or even gone the next level and have an ASCII based simple math question?
My advice is to stick with what works. Though if you really wanted to
you could
On 29 Aug 2008, at 03:45, tedd wrote:
These are what I've come up with:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Just curious tedd, but what do you mean by CAPTCHA's show the world
that you really haven't thought this out. If you have a better
alternative I'd love to hear about it.
CAPTCHA's don't work. Don't depend upon them for any of your projects.
Sure they do. My blog comments were getting spammed to death. Now I've
put a captcha on I rarely have to deal with spam. I'd say that's
working.
CAPTCHA's present accessibility problems for people with disabilities.
These
Hello there,
Actually my captchas show the world some funky coloured text... :-)
I just wondering. What if we show captcha using ASCII ART format.
like
pre
|||
pre
|||
|||
`||| |||`|||`````|||||` ` ||
||||| ||` |.
Thats exactly what i am talking about Richard.
Ólafur Waage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/8/29 Richard Heyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
pre
|||
|||
I just realized that i should have said ASCII Art but not just ASCII,
it was so clear in my head but i notice now how it could have been
misunderstood.
Ólafur Waage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/8/29 Ólafur Waage [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thats exactly what i am talking about Richard.
Ólafur Waage
[EMAIL
At 9:07 AM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
On 29 Aug 2008, at 03:45, tedd wrote:
These are what I've come up with:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Just curious tedd, but what do you mean by CAPTCHA's show the world
that you really haven't thought this out. If you have a better
At 10:00 AM +0100 8/29/08, Richard Heyes wrote:
CAPTCHA's don't work. Don't depend upon them for any of your projects.
Sure they do. My blog comments were getting spammed to death. Now I've
put a captcha on I rarely have to deal with spam. I'd say that's
working.
Yes, it's working for you
On 29 Aug 2008, at 15:15, tedd wrote:
At 9:07 AM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
On 29 Aug 2008, at 03:45, tedd wrote:
These are what I've come up with:
http://webbytedd.com/aa/assorted-captcha/
Just curious tedd, but what do you mean by CAPTCHA's show the
world that you really haven't thought
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, tedd wrote:
No matter how many times you cut this rope, it's still too short.
So, I'm curious, what do you suggest?
As near as I can tell, even with all of the problems (many of which
can be mitigated with enough effort) associated with the use of
At 3:41 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
-Stut:
I agree with some of what you're saying here, but only to a certain
extent. CAPTCHA's are a tool that can be applied to any number of
different situations, so a blanket statement like that cannot
possibly apply.
Of course blanket statements
At 10:45 AM -0400 8/29/08, Eric Gorr wrote:
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, tedd wrote:
No matter how many times you cut this rope, it's still too short.
So, I'm curious, what do you suggest?
As near as I can tell, even with all of the problems (many of which
can be mitigated with enough
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 10:38 +, Ólafur Waage wrote:
I just realized that i should have said ASCII Art but not just ASCII,
it was so clear in my head but i notice now how it could have been
misunderstood.
You do realize that the ascii rendering below is just a bitmap. Most
captcha crackers
On 29 Aug 2008, at 16:33, tedd wrote:
At 3:41 PM +0100 8/29/08, Stut wrote:
The main project I work on at the moment is a classified ad site
and it has CAPTCHA's in three places.
-snip-
I understand there are different reasons behind the use of
CAPTCHA's, but in the end they still present
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
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 11:33 -0400, 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.
Not using CAPTCHAs and allowing the amount of spam posted to a site to
At 1:15 PM -0400 8/29/08, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 11:33 -0400, 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.
Not using CAPTCHAs
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
