Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:31:08 +0000
From:      Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
Cc:        bugbusters@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: I Can't See The Image
Message-ID:  <20040112193108.GF61781@submonkey.net>
In-Reply-To: <4002F108.1584.1099550F@localhost>
References:  <4002F108.1584.1099550F@localhost>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:10:00PM -0000, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:

Hi Sabahattin,

> I'm trying to use the web-based Send-PR interface which is asking me for=
=20
> the text characters corresponding to an image to ensure that I'm not a=20
> robot.  I am merely inhuman. :-)  I'm totally blind, so can't see your=20
> image.  I have a completed form here, the contents of which I'll include=
=20
> in this email in case this form doesn't make it through submission.  Sorr=
y=20
> if it looks bad.

It looks fine; I'll file it for you, as this whole situation is
pretty much down to me.  I knew that users with impaired vision would
have a problem with this (which is why I included the "mail bugbusters"
ALT tag), but figured that it was better than the previous situation,
which was having zero web-based mechanism for bug reporting whatsoever.

I do like the suggestion for using a maths problem; that's very neat.
Are there other verification mechanisms that you could recommend?
Also, looking at the filled out form you've submitted below, I'm
guessing that a major annoyance with image based verification is that
you get no indication that this is necessary until you've filled in the
form - would it be of use (in general) for websites to state at the top
of a form that you'll need to be able to see images later on?

Regarding your observation that robots would be expected to be abusing
an email based system anyway, I agree that you would expect that to be
true, but our experience shows that this doesn't hold.  No idea why.

Apologies for the problems you had with the form, and I'll certainly
look into other mechanisms for doing this verification.

Cheer,

Ceri
FreeBSD Bugmeister

--=20

--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAAvX8ocfcwTS3JF8RAiszAJ9Yr7kiB3TeDRVK8nBhEbcr0hyovgCcCxeV
mAU2B+dN4OcF/wIarETNEaY=
=350l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040112193108.GF61781>