W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > June 2018

RE: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish

From: Dr. Dónal Fitzpatrick <donal.fitzpatrick@dcu.ie>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:22:14 +0100
To: "'APA WG'" <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1bba01d40d93$c12ad3b0$43807b10$@dcu.ie>
Dear Michael, Colleagues,


As this is my first contribution to this working group, I apologise if I am in any way breaching procedure or process.  I have a couple of comments on the document:


1.       In the introduction, it states: “...asking users who are deaf or hearing impaired to identify and transcribe in writing the content of an audio caption...“


Should “caption” not read as “CAPTCHA”?


2.       In the section entitled “A. Terms” might I suggest that the definition of a screen reader be altered to reflect that this form of assistive technology can also produce output in Braille.  Something like the following might work: 

“Assistive technology that renders content as speech or Braille.”


Best wishes,



From: Michael Cooper [mailto:cooper@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday 26 June 2018 20:56
To: APA WG <public-apa@w3.org>
Subject: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish


I've pushed a bunch of changes to the CAPTCHA document prior to publication, that I believe are all editorial, but are somewhat substantial.

The biggest one to note is the abstract rewritten. The previous abstract seemed to me to have too much values language in it (the word "pernicious" was a clue to that), and it presumed background knowledge we shouldn't assume readers have. The abstract is mean to be a high-level overview of the document, and is automatically pulled into a number of places, so even if we plan to edit later, it could be too late to avoid certain problems if we don't address prior to the first public working draft. I believe my wording is more neutral in tone and adequately introduces the document.

The other noticeable change is with references. The document mainly used a format like "This is discussed in [XMLName]" whereas the W3C Manual of Style (https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References) says the format should be "This is discussed in Namespaces in XML [XMLName]" to introduce the reference during the reading flow. I had to make judgements about how to incorporate these into the prose, but think it's still editorial.

Some references I turned into ordinary links, not bibliography entries. In general, when citing a source, we should use bibliography references, but when just referring to a site or product, a simple link is sufficient. 

Another change I had done before opening the CfC to publish, but forgot to merge until after the CfC opened, was to add a list of terms as an appendix.. Janina had given me the terms and some pointers towards definitions; I did my best to construct sensible definitions of the terms. I was unable to find definitions for "hot word" and "polymorphism", so those are commented out.

Finally, this document was proposed as a version 2, but because it's a Working Group Note, it doesn't really make sense to version it and leave the old one floating around, as we can simply update the note. So I change the title and shortname so it will simply the old version. The previous version will still be accessible by dated URI, but the new publication will update the URI https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ immediately, though indicating it as a Working Draft, not a Note until it advances again to that status.

I believe the rest of the changes are clearly editorial. If you have concerns about any of these changes with respect to the documents approval to be published as a First Public Working Draft, please let us know.

Summary of changes:

*	switch to software license since Note track
*	update copyright year
*	genericize product name
*	square to curly quote conversion
*	replace quoted titles with cite
*	lower case bibrefs
*	bibref cleanup
*	spell check
*	abstract rewrite
*	remove redundant
*	comment out terms we don't have defs for
*	capitalization
*	definitions for most of the terms
*	first pass on terms from Janina, some of them references instead
*	update funder acknowledgement to maybe or maybe not the right one
*	split new and old acknowledgements
*	retitle introduction
*	remove unnecessary IDs
*	character entity fix
*	add subtitle
*	unmark as version 2
*	reference previous note
*	add Matt May as former editor


*Séanadh Ríomhphoist/Email Disclaimer*

*Tá an ríomhphost seo agus aon 
chomhad a sheoltar leis faoi rún agus is lena úsáid ag an seolaí agus sin 
amháin é. Is féidir tuilleadh a léamh anseo.  

*This e-mail and any 
files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for use 
by the addressee. Read more here. 



 <https://www.facebook.com/DCU/> <https://twitter.com/DublinCityUni> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 21:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 June 2018 21:24:50 UTC