Re: Please review new Captcha Note draft

This is a really useful update. It's a thorough exploration of the 
CAPTCHA situation today. Thanks to all who put it together.

Just a few editorial comments...

1. Title.

"Inaccessibility" is not spelled correctly in the page title or h1.

2. Acronym placement

Suggest that the CAPTCHA acronym be included in parentheses after the 
full version of the term. It might also be worth explaining why the 
acronym does not match the words in the term?

3. Link text.

The link to "newsCom would be more user friendly if it consisted of the 
name/title of the article it links to. The same is true of the link to 
KillBotz.


4. Privacy.

I urge caution about giving any indication that informing a website of 
your disability is a good thing. The Book Share use case is valid, but 
the website itself does not need to know of the person's disability, 
only Book Share as an organisation needs to verify the person is disabled.

5. References.

The references use an academic format which many may find difficult, 
particularly in the context of an online resource. If online resources 
can be linked to that would be helpful, and if the references are not 
available online perhaps using the shorter numeric pointer to a footnote 
would be more readable.

6. Plan language.

There are a lot of complex words in this resource. The jargon is 
expected, but the overall Flesch Reading Ease score is about 52 (where a 
score of between 60 and 70 is desireable for an average audience).

Léonie.



On 19/04/2018 04:19, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Colleagues:
> 
> Thanks to the diligent work of our Research Questions Task Force (RQTF)
> and especially Dr. Scott Hollier, APA now has a comprehensively
> researched, fully updated and comprehensively rewritten draft of our
> long ago published Captcha Note document for your consideration.
> 
> As you are no doubt aware, APA has tried on several occasions to update
> the 2004 note on captcha without success. We're hopeful this revision
> may actually provide us the much needed path to updating that note.
> 
> Unless critical problems with the new draft emerge, it is our hope to move
> fairly aggressively through the W3C note publication process. This will
> include review in APA, then in the wider W3C accessibility community
> through the WAI-IG, and finally with the wider public following a First
> Public Working Draft (FPWD) publication of this new document.
> 
> So, as a first step, please review and comment on the document at:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/apa/captcha/
> 
> 
> All comments are most urgently solicited, even if only to say: "I read
> it and think it should go forward." It is important to know that many,
> hopefully most of us, have taken the time to read the document
> critically and to provide comments as you have them to make. For the
> moment this solicitation for comments is addressed to the wider APA
> community. However, we will soon extend itt to the wider WAI community
> unless APA members identify critical problems.
> 
> Note only that we're aware some additional editorial work is required
> before this draft can become an FPWD, e.g. the provided references need
> to be formatted and hyperlinked appropriately. We also hope to
> accomplish that task before wider WAI review is solicited.
> 
> Thank you for your attention to this long awaited update to W3C's note
> on inaccessibility of captcha.
> 
> On behalf of the RQTF,
> 
> Janina and Jason
> 
> 

-- 
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2018 17:56:46 UTC