Re: Please read asap--reCAPTCHA rewritten

Hi Janina,

Took a final look and caught a few things. These are all editorial. 
Sorry for the timing; reachable by phone if needed to help sort any of 
these out today.

- I think that the first time that CAPTCHA appears in the document, we 
should spell it out in the text, e.g. "Completely Automated Public 
Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart." By the way, this is not 
what our own footnote says, and I think that should be aligned to match 
the acronym.

- Sub-heading "The CAPTCHA Milieu" why not just saw "The CAPTCHA 
Context" -- more understandable and translatable, which we want our 
documents to be

- "deaf or hearing impaired" I suggest changing to "deaf or hard of hearing"

- also, considering translatability and understandability of the 
document, I suggest changing "current conditions only undergird the 
importance" to either "reinforce the importance" or "underscore the 
importance" (first one preferred; second one a bit more common than 

- typo at "commenserate with" should be "commensurate with" (or again, 
could use a more common word for translatability of the document, for 
instance "consistent with"

- "Native and literate Arabic or Thai speakers" why not just say "Arabic 
or Thai speakers" -- I don't understand what the descriptors add, and 
they seem odd here.

- "slidebar" probably needs a description, as some readers may be 
unfamiliar with the term, and in particular, translators will probably 
not find it in any dictionaries and may assume it's a typo of "sidebar" 
which would give a different meaning

- 3.1.1. There are a few usages of "All" in this paragraph that are 
confusing -- "the language the browser is set to, All cookies" and then 
some subsequent usages; also around the same location, repeated use of 
"of course" with regard to data privacy seems confusing and possibly not 
up to date with latest practice

- "generally loath to disclose" this is probably also a phrase that 
makes translations harder, and there are a few other phrases later in 
the document that also fall into that category, which it might be worth 
checking back after this review cycle.

- other things I'd mentioned in meetings seem to have been caught well, 
thanks very much.


- Judy

On 5/17/2019 9:56 AM, 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.
> 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
Judy Brewer
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
32 Vassar St. Room 385, MIT/CSAIL
Cambridge MA 02139 USA

Received on Friday, 17 May 2019 15:25:44 UTC