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#Attempts_at_more_accessible_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/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
