- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:55:08 -0600
- To: "'Kerstin Goldsmith'" <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>, "'wcag'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Kerstin, Thanks Kerstin for taking this on and for the update. I'm not sure I understand how your group plans to handle this on a technique level. Based on our current guidelines, I believe CAPCHAs have to have text equivalents. Unless I am mistaken, unless you come up with something that is an SC or we edit our current SC then there will be no place to put your techniques and CAPCHAs would still require text equivalents --- unless they are multimeda. We have a loophole if you will for multimedia. All other content requires a text alternative. We have another loophole for functional non-text content that cannot be described in text - but CAPCHAs don't qualify as functional and can be described in text. Cause that is what you do to make them work. Which SC did you think the CAPCHAs would fall under? (Where did you think your techniques would go as sufficient solutions). Thanks. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kerstin Goldsmith Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:13 PM To: wcag Subject: issue 741 Gregg, et al: Issue 741: We came to a conceptual agreement on the approach to the CAPTCHA issue, but we need to work on the wording more. We all three agree that this would not be normative, or SC, but would rather be a technique. We will need another week to work on this. Cheers, Judy, Cythia, Kerstin
Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 19:58:23 UTC