Posted by Rami Elomaa on 05/11/07 20:01

Jon Slaughter kirjoitti:
> "Rami Elomaa" <rami.elomaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mSC0i.161638$7S3.88425@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:M5C0i.20965$JZ3.17479@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "Rami Elomaa" <rami.elomaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jYA0i.161597$y53.19889@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>>>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Aun0i.1721$UU.300@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> I was thinking about a way to use a similar idea but to dramatically
>>>>> increase the ability to thawrt bots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is to use the idea that humans can use context and patterns to
>>>>> understand much better than computers in such cases as the following,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.simplebits.com/notebook/2004/01/16/mipellssed_wdors.html
>>>>>
>>>>> So the idea is to ask the user a very simple questions that is written
>>>>> using misspelled words and such so that it makes it almost impossible
>>>>> for computers to recognize what the answer is. The question can be
>>>>> graphically manipulated so that its also visually harder to figure out
>>>>> like a normal captcha.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides changing the order of the letters in a word one can
>>>>> deliberately change letters so that the word doesn't make sense but in
>>>>> the context is not difficult for a human. One can even use bad grammar
>>>>> and a few other things to make it more difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking that one could create a very large database of such
>>>>> things in different languages that sites could use.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>
>>>> You're giving the finger to dyslexic people.
>>>>
>>> And? So you think they can read normal captchas too?
>> No, I think the usual captchas are hard to read too, dyslexic or not.
>>
>>> if they are dyslexic then chances are they can actually read them easier
>>> because there is context... so you don't have to read letter for letter
>>> but just get the question.
>> If normal text with context is hard to read, garbled text will be even
>> more difficult to read, even if it is in context. Feel free to ignore the
>> issue, but please don't pretend it doesn't exist.
>>
>>> Dyslexia is an excuse for stupid people.
>> And being blind is just an excuse for being clumsy...
>>
> that isn't feedback. Shit. What about blind people? Do you bitch that
> captchas are completely worthless for them and since 99.9% of people who are
> not blind have to act blind because we don't want to in any way descriminate
> against the 0.1%?

When did I say your captcha would be "completely worthless"? Never. I
never stated that, and I'm not sayin either that blurred image captchas
are useless. I am not against you or your captcha. It's nice to have new
innovations. I just thought you'd like to know that there is a flaw in
it, that certainly doesn't render it useless, but makes it difficult to
use for a certain group of people. And this is all I've said. Everything
else is in your imagination, I've not said these things.

> How many sites use captchas? If its such a difficult thing then obviously
> you should bitch at them first.

The other captchas have downsides. If you'll try to register a gmail
account, you'll find that they provide not one, but two different types
of captchas, one visual and one aural. A computer will fail both, but a
human user, even a disabled one, will usually be able to at least one of
the two tests. They've recognized the fact that a visual captcha is not
flawless, hence they provide two different types.

>> Look, if you didn't want feedback then why the hell did you ask in the
>> first place?
>>
>
> No, that isn't feedback. Your trying to dictate to me something that you
> haven't thought out.

What exactly was I trying to dictate? I never said that you shouldn't
use it. All I did was brought to your attention that it raises the bar
for dyslexic people. I didn't tell you _not_ to develope the system, did I?

> What about dyslexic people? What the hell about them?

The greatness of a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.

> Just cause there are dyslexic people out there that means that the rest of
> us have to dumb down everything instead of them trying harder?

Because it's polite?

Let's take the visually challenged example again, cos it's very easy to
understand. In an atm machine there is the regular joe buttons with
printed roman numerals. The buttons also have the numbers written in
braille, so a blind person can operate the atm just as well. Having them
there is not "dumbing down" anything for a person with 20-20 vision, to
a person with a normal vision they have no effect. It's simply providing
an alternate interface for a disabled person. Furthermore, if there were
no braille, "trying harder" would not enable a blind person to see the
numbers.

> Theres plenty of dyslexic people who don't use it as an excuse and I'm
> partially dyslexic but I haven't let it get in my way.

That's good for you. My handicap is that my right ear is completly deaf,
I only hear with the left ear. It usually does not affect me in any way,
but having this mostly insignificant disability has given me perspective
and taught me to not take evertyhing for granted.

> It just sounds to me like your making up an excuse for something. Just cause
> you personally don't like captchas and thing they are useless doesn't mean
> they are.

I'm not making any excuses, why would I? Again, when did I say that I
don't like captchas? I've stated that they are always flawed one way or
the other, they are usually not fulfilling their job of telling humans
and computes apart, since there are false negatives. This is simply a
known fact, which anyone who designs a capthca should be aware of. They
exclude a group of people and to serve their needs, you need a backup
plan. I've pointed out that the minority sturggling in your case would
be the dyslexic, and that you possibly need a backup plan for them. I
have not stated at any time that you should not do this captcha. You
truly have a wonderful imagination as you come up with all this bullshit
you think I'm saying.

> In fact I don't like them either but I don't like that people
> think they can do whatever they want. In a perfect world there would be no
> need for captchas... but this isn't a perfect world and instead of trying to
> make the world conform to you, you need to conform to the world.

Yes, and there indeed are different ways of doing that. The gmail
example I mentioned earlier is a good way. Surely there must be a
minority within minority within minority that still won't be able to
register gmail, but as you said it, this is not a perfect world. Now
then, saying "What about dyslexic people? What the hell about them?" is
not a good way.

> You know, theres no telling how many times I've fucked up on some captcha
> and had to wait 1 min each time for the timer to go down(Such as on
> rapidshare). Sure I get pissed... so what. If it inconvieninces those
> loosers who try to hack account then its worth it.

The intrest span of a modern internet user is growing shorter and
shorter. Back in the old days a person could easily wait 20 seconds to 1
minute for a page to load. Now with broadbands, the time has shortened
to less than 8 seconds. In addition. if a person happens to have adhd
and also is dyslexic, they're gone. Five minutes my ass. They're gone in
15 seconds.. Okay, this is a long shot, and not a very realistic
example, I admit that. Still, you'll see that five minutes is actually
quite a long time after all. And for some people it's beyond the "worth
it" limit. Extremely complex registration processes alienate users.
Something that may seem to you fairly easy can be extremely difficult
for others.

> I'm sure those people who are dyslexic can spend 5 mins figuring out a
> captcha if it stops 99.9% of bots/hackers. Its not like any normal person
> signs up to more than a few accounts a month.

Yes, I'm sure they can, but still it is a nuisance. If you can come up
with a way that takes them only 1 minute instead of five, they will
certainly appreciate it.

Finally, I'd like to say that my intention was not to pick a huge fight.
The conversation here has gone way out of proportion. I admit that I
could have chosen my words better. By starting wiht "You're giving the
finger..." I sort of started the avalanche. To avoid this kind of
confrontations you and I both need to work on our communication skills
and keep in mind that getting steamed up over a discussion in the
internet is not worth it.

I actually started two responses earlier today and yesterday, but
instead of sending them I deleted them. I felt that I put too much
emotion and too little sense in them. This final draft is somewhat less
edgy and hopefully a bit more rational. When it comes to posting usenet
messages, I have a habit of sometimes being blunt and arrogant, and it's
something I've tried to work on over the years. Not posting to usenet at
all is the only way for me to kick the habit completly.

--
Rami.Elomaa@gmail.com

"Wikipedia on vähän niinq internetin raamattu, kukaan ei pohjimmiltaan
usko siihen ja kukaan ei tiedä mikä pitää paikkansa." -- z00ze

[Back to original message]