Re: My review of capture draft

Hi, Lisa:

Let me be clear at the outset. Any content you can create to enhance the
CAPTCHA rewrite will be most welcome.

Having said this, let me add that I believe we've covered all the issues
enumerated in the two resources you reference below. Teasing out which
are CAPTCHA issues as opposed to which are authentication issues is a
bit difficult, so I could be wrong in my assessment.


So, let me instead talk about the organizational structure of the new
CAPTCHA Note draft.

We do not discuss disabilities per se. We discuss different CAPTCHA
approaches, some quite ancient and fully abandoned by CAPTCHA
developers, others quite new and, we believe, far more promissing
because they significantly reduce the cognitive load on all users. This
latter category includes fully noninteractive approaches. We call them
all CAPTCHA in the generic meaning of the term. The meaning we use is
the task of distinguishing a human user from a scripted robot user. In
that sense CAPTCHA and Turing Test are really the same thing.

So, a couple specific points:

1.)	In discussing particular CAPTCHA approaches we say these are
problematic for users with X and Y disabilities. If there are COGA
categories we might to any of these, please provide those. We'll happily
add them.

2.)	In some cases we describe in some great detail exactly how
certain approaches present functional difficulties for users with
certain disabilities. If you'd like to provide some additional content
that does this for certain approaches, that would be very relevant and
most welcome.

I will be happy to discuss this further with you and COGA during the
call this Thursday, or on future calls. At this point it appears the CfC
to publish a second wide review draft will pass. Unless that proves
incorrect I would expect the open comment period to last through June.


hth

Janina

Lisa Seeman writes:
> My review of capture draft at https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/review-cfc/captcha/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Although the technologies are discussed and explained, I feel the users issues and challenges are not well represented or explained, specifically when talking about COGA use groups which is a new topic for many people  - including people in accessibility! 
> 
> 
> 
> A problem that is not touched on with offering alternatives is typical alternatives currently chosen for accessibility are often also unusable for people with coga. They need to make sure one method does not require problem solving or memory  including transcribing, and one method does not rely on sight etc. 
> 
> 
> 
> we have wonderful resources here to incorporate and get  the coga use cases and challenges into the draft
> 
> 
> 
> look at the wonderful work by EA Jennie Jamie and others at https://docs.google.com/document/d/16OA95LpFAcHWb5Y_4wS65q64gEEWf1AYNfmt2_Pjd6A/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=110409080524773921565
> 
> 
> 
> and of course our issue paper at https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/#web-security-and-privacy-technologies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/, https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa

-- 

Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 20:06:01 UTC