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-bl
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
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
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.
> 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/)
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 errors
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
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
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
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 cli
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 sub
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:
>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 anothe
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
lea
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
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
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 eithe
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 code
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, h
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 mispellin
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. T
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
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 ot
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
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
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
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. :-)
WHOO
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 eff
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,
ted
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 ro
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
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 i
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 th
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 wit
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
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
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
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 accessibi
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, e
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 ass
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 Gen
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 lau
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 techno
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 n
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. CAPTCHA
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 would
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 (not
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 te
At 12:14 AM +0200 8/30/08, Jochem Maas wrote:
I have no shame ... I'm dutch.
That's obvious. :-)
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 world's leading
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 prop
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 be
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:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/breaking-goo
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 r
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 want
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? I
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. CAPTCHA is
certainly an are
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:
> >>
> >> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/breaking-google-captchas-for-3-a-day/
> >
>
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 00:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Oh, here's an interesting story:
>
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/breaking-google-captchas-for-3-a-day/
This was written by a journalist, not a technology expert. Even the
person to which he was talking needed to clarify the meanin
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. CAPTCHA is
certainly an area of interest to ma
This is called the "Relay Attack" and is not a crack.
Cheers,
Rob.
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:57 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> p.s. I cannot claim credit for this piece of info and since you will
> reject out of hand anything I might say, I am quoting it
> directlybut thought you might be int
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:39 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:24 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Au
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:37 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Personally, I believe that PHP General should dedicated to the
> discussion of PHP. For whatever reason, Robert Cummings wants to have
> a protracted discussion which has nothing to do with PHP. As this is
> clearly turning into a protract
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:27 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
>
> btw, why are you bothering the mailing list with this pointless
> conversation?
For the archives. This way the arguments for and against may be known
and the next time a trolling idiot makes a run for gold I can direct
them to the archives.
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:24 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:40 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 17:28 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:40 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 17:28 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> >> On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 16:54 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote:
> On Aug
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 21:38 -0400, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:51 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
> >
> > on behalf of the list, please accept our "Crayon of the Week" award.
>
> *lol* I have seen Crayon in months.
Err... haven't!
:)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
--
http://www.interji
On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:51 +0200, Jochem Maas wrote:
>
> on behalf of the list, please accept our "Crayon of the Week" award.
*lol* I have seen Crayon in months.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.
On Aug 29, 2008, at 6:56 PM, 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.
Indeed. Although, I might include shelter, c
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-
use site.
-S
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/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscr
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 evide
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.
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 b
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?
S
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
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 t
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
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
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 visu
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:/
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 vi
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
acces
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 cat
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 si
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 reas
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 p
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
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 t
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
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-o
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
pro
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 reas
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
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 nee
>> 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.
CAPTCHA
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
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
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 a
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
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
pr
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
