- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 11:08:14 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Tom Croucher wrote: > >Charles, > >A couple of points, firstly yes it might be inaccessible but I am trying to >be pragmatic. If we can help find soltuions and offer advice to companies >that feel they need this feature that can only help. Companies for example >could argue that it is uneconomic to not use captchas. How many of use have >recieved spam from yahoo or hotmail or aol addresses. Yahoo uses captchas >to attempt to address this issue. Sorry, I am not arguing that reducing spam is bad thing. It would be helpful to work out how to do something like this, but my point was that even having the options of image and audio would still lead to problems - and that if that is the case it should automatically follow that such a solution could not pass the guidelines. I think it is generally known that I think any kind of exception to the guidelines based on something other than accessibility is a huge mistake. I think your idea of questions can help provide alternatives. I disagree that text is universally accessible - it is a requirement of anything universally accessible that it be available as text, but that's not enough as a rule. But being able to put it in ways that are hard to automatically treat can help for a while. by the way there is a theory in security, which basically says that club locks won't work because everyone will need to get one before they stop people from stealing cars, whereas car locator beacons work because even though you can steal the car you will get caught. Stopping people sending spam through yahoo is like buying club locks - it means those who don't do similarly will be better targets for spammers... cheers Chaals
Received on Saturday, 18 October 2003 11:08:15 UTC