On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Josh Rosenbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: >> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:11, Josh Rosenbaum wrote: >>> If this doesn't work for you, you've lost maybe 10-20 minutes of time, >>> so no big deal. >> >> Setting up a recaptcha.net captcha will likely not be more than 20 >> minutes of time, either, and with that you're "done". :-) > > My point wasn't that it took a short amount of time to implement, but rather > if it doesn't work for someone, they haven't really lost anything and can > move onto the more "complicated" (to the website user) solution. > > recaptcha.net is definitely an interesting captcha method and I love that it > helps digitize books. I may put it into use sometime. > > The image captcha method still has the drawbacks of being harder to read than > plain text and not as accessible, though. recaptcha.net also comes with the > added drawback of relying on 3rd party servers for the captcha to work along > with any possible downtime and delays that come with them. (Feel free to let > me know if I'm wrong here or if there is a way to use recaptcha.net without > the 3rd party servers.)
Considering that major Web sites like Facebook use reCAPTCHA I would have to assume that the third party server in this case is probably more robust than my own. :-) They also have an audio captcha feature for blind users. (If you're blind AND deaf, you wouldn't be using the Web anyway.) > I just prefer the minimum amount of interference to users on all websites. > Clearly for huge websites that demands an image/audio captcha, but often I > find they are overkill and just hinder normal users. I agree they're not really necessary; you have to weigh the cost and benefit to see what the right balance is. _______________________________________________ templates mailing list [email protected] http://mail.template-toolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/templates
