- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:38:48 -0500
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
A white paper (draft) went up on the W3C Technical Reports page Wednesday. Inacessibility of Visually-Oriented Anti-Robot Tests: Problems and Alternatives http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ Kelly Ford summed up the status in this are succinctly when he said <quote cite="mid:001301c3a4db$eaf2ce40$1e02a8c0@wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com"> This is worth a read if you haven't already explored the issue. There's no perfect solution to this problem today though in my opinion. </quote> So given that there is no perfect solution right now, can we do a little brainstorming? Answers in any of the following areas are relevant: Some points in each area are already in the Working Draft. Can you add any? Use the keywords in [brackets] below in your subject line for a jump-start framing your comment. [turingtest - squeaks] More examples of where this kind of inaccessibility is creeping into practice? What is it, precisely, that is problematical? [turingtest - works] What is out there and in use that partially works or works, but not well enough? [turingtest - sky] If you had a fresh sheet of paper and could design a solution from scratch, how should it ideally work? [turingtest - steps] What incremental changes would make things a bit better? Al
Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 14:38:54 UTC