W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rqtf@w3.org > May 2019

Re: Please read asap--reCAPTCHA rewritten

From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:22:39 +0100
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: public-rqtf@w3.org, Ángel <angel@w3.16bits.net>
Message-ID: <f5f0c5d7-0d98-c02e-2d57-4b550e6c4219@w3.org>
Hey Janina,

On 17/05/2019 15:10, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Hey, Josh:
> My problem is the previous paragraph praises them. So, I need some kind
> of connector that says "now we're damming them."

If that's the case, we can do better..

"D' words are good. Disappointingly.. Despite this promise, it was never 
realised and it now appears..

kind of thing..



> I agree that "on the other hand" could have more bite, but what would
> signal the change better?
> Joshue O Connor writes:
>> One small editorial..
>> In Paragraph 5 of 3.1.1 - Version 2: Are you a robot? - the para starts with
>> a lower case o - 'on the the other hand'.
>> I suggest that you drop this anyway and start the para with "It now appears
>> that audio CAPTCHAs.. [...]" it has more bite that way IMO.
>> HTH
>> Josh
>> On 17/05/2019 14:56, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>> Colleagues:
>>> Per our conversations on Wednesday's RQTF teleconference, I've edited
>>> our discussion of reCAPTCHA to use verbs that suggest mostly the past
>>> perfect and present progressive, i.e. things may have changed when
>>> people read our document a year or more from now. As we discussed, how
>>> long V. 2 remains available, despite it's wide current adoption, is
>>> completely up to Google. They can pull the switch on it anytime, as they
>>> have on audio reCAPTCHA even since our first wide review.
>>> https://w3c.github.io/apa/captcha/#the-google-recaptcha
>>> Please read as soon as you can. I'm hoping to get this locked down today
>>> so that I can also issue a Call for Consensus to APA as we also
>>> discussed.
>>> Note I'm also copying Angel who provided the following relevant comment:
>>> Ángel writes:
>>>> On 2019-05-14 at 15:13 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>>>    ...
>>>> The piece about reCAPTCHA V. 2 seems a bit inconsistent: it claims to be
>>>> "recent" (without specifying a date), but it's already gone. I suspect
>>>> it may be an old contribution that was left as-is. Could probably
>>>> improve by changing all this paragraph to past tense.
>>>>> One recent reCAPTCHA V. 2 innovation has seemed most promising. (...)
>>>>> Unfortunately, as of this writing it appears that audio CAPTCHAs
>>>>> previously available are now no longer being provided
>>>>> Google is intent that a traditional CAPTCHA not be the fallback
>>>> mechanism.
>>>> It could be rephrased eg.
>>>> "with the intent that the implemented fallback mechanism is not a
>>>> traditional CAPTCHA."
>>>> ...
>>> Janina
>> -- 
>> Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)

Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)
Received on Friday, 17 May 2019 14:21:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 17 January 2023 20:26:46 UTC