W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > June 2019

Re: CAPTCHA Update--An extended opportunity

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 08:55:34 -0400
To: "Rochford, John" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Cc: "public-rqtf@w3.org" <public-rqtf@w3.org>, "public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20190604125534.GE2843@rednote.net>
Dear John, All:

I've been mulling further what we might harvest from John's issues lists
referenced below for the current CAPTCHA draft in APA. As time permits,
I am willing to go item by item through John's list to see whether an
additional phrase somewhere in the current draft could further clarify
the impact for persons living with COGA situations.

However, when I think of doing that I run into a problem I don't know
how to solve. Here's my problem.

The paper never says "some people" have this or that problem. We never
say some people have trouble with visual CaPTCHA, or with audio CAPTCHA.
We're always more precise than that. We say, and this is a direct
quote:

"For example, asking users who are blind, visually impaired or dyslexic
to identify textual characters in a distorted graphic is asking them to
perform a task they are intrinsically least able to accomplish.
Similarly, asking users who are deaf, hard of hearing, or living with
Auditory Processing Disorder to identify and transcribe in writing the
content of an audio CAPTCHA is asking them to perform a task they're
intrinsically least likely to accomplish. Furthermore, traditional
CAPTCHAs have generally presumed that all web users can read and
transcribe English-based words and characters, thus making the test
inaccessible to a large number of non-English speaking web users
worldwide."


And that's the block I encounter with John's issues list. We need more
specificity.

Can someone help associate specific named COGA conditions to the various
issues John lists? That would then help me add them into our document.

Anyone able to help with that?

Best,

Janina

Janina Sajka writes:
> Hi, John:
> 
> Thanks for this pointer. I believe we've addressed the issues you cover
> in the three blog posts you reference though perhaps not always
> explicitly.
> 
> Example: We do not discuss that a third party (e.g. family member) might
> be enrolled as an authenticated user action authenticator because this
> is not a document of techniques for persons with disabilities on how to
> survive a world of CAPTCHA deployments. It's aimed instead at developer
> communities. Thus, this point becomes irrelevant because there's no
> restriction on, or validation of device ownership in the enrollment
> process that would preclude listing a trusted third party's smart phone,
> for instance, as a backup authenticating device.
> 
> It may be that you would find additional explication in functional
> descriptions we provide valuable. Such submissions are welcome and
> unlikely to be properly drafted by those of us inexperienced in COGA
> work.
> 
> Also, there's a statement I didn't understand ...
> 
> Rochford, John writes:
> > Hi Janina,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Several years ago, I wrote about CAPTCHA as part of my review, for the COGA TF, of web security technologies. (That work was the foundation of the Accessible Authentication SC work I am leading.) See the first 3 blog posts of this list<https://clearhelper.blog/?s=CAPTCHA>. I hope you find something helpful.
> 
> 1.)	In
> https://clearhelper.blog/2014/09/02/captcha-cognitive-disabilities-v1-w3c-task-force/
> 
> What do you mean by:
> 
> * have the advantage of comprehending the meaning of words or images
> 
> I guess I don't understand how comprehension affects satisfying a visual
> CAPTCHA.
> 
> If the meaning is that many people with cognitive disabilities find it
> difficult to satisfy an a CAPTCHA that requires replication of an
> arbitrary sequence of characters that do not form a meaningful word or
> phrase, that could be a useful addition to the visual CAPTCHA section.
> However, the following note.
> 
> NOTE: The current CAPTCHA draft essentially deprecates visual CAPTCHA, and we
> note the industry has moved beyond them in the greater degree. They're
> no longer considered particularly secure. In fact we note a vicious
> cycle relating CAPTCHA solving to A-I development by quoting Google on
> that point.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the prompt response. Happy to discuss further.
> 
> Janina
> 
> 
> 
> "
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > John Rochford<http://bit.ly/profile-rj>
> > University of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
> > Director, INDEX Program
> > Faculty, Family Medicine & Community Health
> > www.DisabilityInfo.org
> > LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-rochford/>
> > 
> > Confidentiality Notice:
> > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary, and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and destroy or permanently delete all copies of the original message.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> > Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 10:09 AM
> > To: public-rqtf@w3.org; public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org; apa Lisa Seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; jennie.wai@rednote.net
> > Subject: CAPTCHA Update--An extended opportunity
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Colleagues:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > While APA's recent Call for Consensus agreed on publishing a second wide review CAPTCHA draft, we were unable to announce our publication widely as we had expected to do. This is because the announcement of a new agreement between W3C and WHAT was published at the same time we intended to post our review request. We did not want to compete, or overshadow the important development with HTML.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Consequently, we are pushing back the formal announcement and publication of our second wide review CAPTCHA draft until next week.
> > 
> > This provides an extended opportunity for comments, but also an extended opportunity to affect the draft that will be the second wide review publication itself.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Here's the new schedule as it now stands:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1.)  Edits to the Editor's Draft for inclusion in the wide review
> > 
> > publication will be accepted through 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time this coming Sunday 7 June.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 2.)  A brief CfC to publish will be conducted by APA next week as
> > 
> > there are already substantive edits proposed for the Editor's Draft on github.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 3.)  The second wide review publication, together with blog posts and
> > 
> > other announcements are now scheduled for Friday 14 June.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 4.)  The public comment period will run through 23:59 (Midnight)
> > 
> > Boston Time on Sunday 14 July.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *** Considerations  to Bear in Mind ***
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Please note several editorial corrections are already present in the Editor's Draft, and others are queued for addition as I write this
> > 
> > message:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__w3c.github.io_apa_captcha_&d=DwIBAg&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=-IAuW0xwwS9gYM_jASbeaZ3wt8M0ErwQdGrwaR9zvLs&s=LjDbk5hg3Fe3IhxsvVVjW6g1JIJ22ZTceboPGa6xvRM&e=
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > One suggestion from the COGA Task Force, which I believe came from Jennie Delisi, is now used in Sec. 1.2 of the Editor's Draft here:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.w3.org_TR_turingtest_-23the-2Daccessibility-2Dchallenge&d=DwIBAg&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=-IAuW0xwwS9gYM_jASbeaZ3wt8M0ErwQdGrwaR9zvLs&s=-4-kPyWqpByat2SoV7jSVkolBbzbiO9JfVSmcSNRJ0Q&e=
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Specifically, we now cite "auditory processing disorders" as an example, and I believe this enhances the document in several ways including by providing a more parallel syntactic sentence structure in that introductory paragraph.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Further suggestions are most welcome. However, please note this document does not discuss disabilities per se. Rather, it discusses functional impediments faced by people with disabilities in specific CAPTCHA approaches. Therefore, we're most interested in hearing of any functional impediments not currently covered for specific CAPTCHA approaches. We are also particularly interested in any CAPTCHA approaches we may have not discussed.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Janina
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Janina Sajka
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > 
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:      https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__a11y.org&d=DwIBAg&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=-IAuW0xwwS9gYM_jASbeaZ3wt8M0ErwQdGrwaR9zvLs&s=M4IMiL3eBXlTbhemJryBpMsuhn1I3tx9mTJxBQpI7zI&e=
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > 
> > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures      https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.w3.org_wai_apa&d=DwIBAg&c=WJBj9sUF1mbpVIAf3biu3CPHX4MeRjY_w4DerPlOmhQ&r=CueeOhb9CA5L2yfl16hThwCe1zS5LdHYD5MikPNgKr4&m=-IAuW0xwwS9gYM_jASbeaZ3wt8M0ErwQdGrwaR9zvLs&s=mmWYyulRhq5K-VAE6XURw5VDmX32liYKh2W88hC3fWg&e=
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 

-- 

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 Tuesday, 4 June 2019 12:55:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:03 UTC