E-mail List Archives
Thread: Accessible NCAA Bracket
Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)
From: Terry Thompson
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 12:50AM
Subject: Accessible NCAA Bracket
No previous message | Next message →
For those who enjoy the thrill of March Madness but are sick of all the
eyesight- and mouse-dependent brackets that are out there, I've developed a
standards-based NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament bracket with a variety of
features that support navigation by screen reader users. There's a link near
the top of the page to a features list. This is a work in progress - I
welcome your suggestions.
http://staff.washington.edu/tft/ncaa/bracket.html
Terry
Terry Thompson
Technology Specialist, DO-IT
University of Washington
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
206/221-4168
http://www.washington.edu/doit
From: Mark Magennis
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 2:40AM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | Next message →
On 14 Mar 2007, at 21:24, tedd wrote:
> I would be interested in your opinion, and others, of this captcha.
>
> http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/index.php
Tedd,
I just tried it and it sounded like "ree ba vie zero" to me. I
couldn't even guess at the second character. It also took a long time
to start up and there were long pauses between the sounds. I'm on a
dialup line and using a Macbook Pro laptop. The Mac's internal
speakers aren't great but they are considerably better than those of
my previous Fujitsu-Siemens laptop.
Mark
********************************************************************
NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to
delete it and any attachments from your system.
NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However,
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of NCBI
********************************************************************
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 3:30AM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | Next message →
Tedd wrote:
> I would be interested in your opinion, and others, of this captcha.
> http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/index.php
And for those who can't hear?
I'm not a fan of CAPCHA's, but as someone who is on the receiving end of
a truckload of spam, I understand the need.
Longer term, I think there are two main possible solutions:
1. Using OpenID with a supplier who will also provide the 'trust'
element.
For those that haven't tried it, OpenID is a distrubute mechanism for
providing a single sign-on.
(http://simonwillison.net/2006/openid-screencast/)
OpenID is good for the user (only needing one set of log-in details),
but doesn't do much for the web site owner, as anyone can create and use
an OpenID, including spammers.
However, if certain suppliers of OpenID provided a trust mechanism (i.e.
check the validity of the people), you could allow comments/logins from
people using those suppliers.
In this way you would only have to complete a CAPTCHA once for all your
accounts, and the supplier (e.g. Yahoo or Microsoft) could provide
alternative mechanisms such as phoning up.
2. A social networking web service, as suggested by Gez Lemon:
http://juicystudio.com/article/accessibility-of-captcha.php#socialnetwor
k
These two methods aren't mutually exclusive, you could have the account
with a supplier and enter a social network using it.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: tedd
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 9:50AM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | Next message →
At 10:25 AM +0000 3/15/07, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>Tedd wrote:
>> I would be interested in your opinion, and others, of this captcha.
>> http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/index.php
>
>And for those who can't hear?
One problem at a time. There are different types of CAPTCHA's, as you
can see here.
http://www.sperling.com/examples/assorted-captcha/index.php
I think a combination of captchas could cover most disabilities.
As for OpenID, I have an account with them, but I find the
registration a bit complicated. In addition, you can't get the logon
name that you might want and the technique is not wide-spread enough
to provide universal access. IMO, a lot of web sites have to
participate to make it effective.
I'm not sure why an opt-in technique is not a reasonable answer for
that type of problem. After all, if a user wants to post something,
then the user submits their email address to a form and a
logon/password is emailed to them thereby identifying that: a) the
user has at least an email address; b) and email address is attended;
c) and the user has to return, and logon to post something. This is a
series of action that a bot probably wouldn't preform.
But, perhaps there's something wrong with this technique that I am unaware.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 10:00AM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | Next message →
> One problem at a time. There are different types of CAPTCHA's, as you
> can see here.
Which is fair enough, but why not have a few providers rather than
having to implement several of them on every site? (And people having to
use them on everysite.)
> As for OpenID, I have an account with them
Err, who? AOL, MS, MyOpenID? There are quite a few providers already!
> I find the registration a bit complicated.
Ok, but just remember that you should only have to do it once.
> In addition, you can't get the logon name that you might want
Perhaps, but if you are so inclined, you can set it up to use your own
homepage. All you provide as a login is your URL.
> and the technique is not wide-spread enough
> to provide universal access. IMO, a lot of web sites have to
> participate to make it effective.
Yep, but it's gathering momentum pretty quickly. There are many
providers, it's the sites that need to catch up now.
Regarding using email:
> This is a
> series of action that a bot probably wouldn't preform.
Actually, it's quite easy to automate, or at least make very quick, and
can't serve as a trust mechanism. You could also automate the creation
of OpenIDs, which is why you would still need a trust mechanism.
Possibly one of the methods I suggested, although I'm sure there could
be other methods.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: tedd
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 12:00PM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | Next message →
Alastair :
At 4:57 PM +0000 3/15/07, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> > One problem at a time. There are different types of CAPTCHA's, as you
>> can see here.
>
>Which is fair enough, but why not have a few providers rather than
>having to implement several of them on every site? (And people having to
>use them on everysite.)
The problem as I see it, is that the typical person who wants a spam
prohibiting mechanism most commonly looks to a CAPTCHA as a solution.
My attempt here is to provide solutions that are accessible. That
does not prohibit anyone from seeking other methods.
> > As for OpenID, I have an account with them
>
>Err, who? AOL, MS, MyOpenID?
Err, as I said -- "OpenID" -- as found here: http://openid.net/
As for AOL and M$, I may be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that they
will provide anything leading edge. The "pick the cat" technique
recently discussed is an example where you certainly could have added
"What about the blind?" or for those visual impaired. Even I had a
hard time finding the cat AND they did even have the foresight to tie
the image to a zoom level -- for example, see this:
http://sperling.com/examples/zoom/
That's a very easy technique to implement and they simply didn't take the time.
I think my "Performance CAPTCHA" certainly surpasses the "pick the
cat" attempt -- and I've had that for many years.
http://sperling.com/examples/assorted-captcha/
> There are quite a few providers already!
>
>Yep, but it's gathering momentum pretty quickly. There are many
>providers, it's the sites that need to catch up now.
That's part of the problem -- a user may have to register with
several providers to cover all the places where s/he may want to post.
>Actually, it's quite easy to automate, or at least make very quick, and
>can't serve as a trust mechanism. You could also automate the creation
>of OpenIDs, which is why you would still need a trust mechanism.
>Possibly one of the methods I suggested, although I'm sure there could
>be other methods.
How about this?
The goal is:
1. The user wants to logon to a blog and post.
2. Blog owners want only legitimate users to post.
Legitimacy is defined as a user having their own web site or a place
where they can store a verifiable key. The key need not be a secret
nor permanent -- but only needs to be tied to a url temporarily.
How would this work?
User wants to post on your blog and without a confirmed ID is
directed to the clearing house.
User contacts a clearing house and request an account. The clearing
house asks for their web address. After which the clearing house
generates an "unique ID" key and shows it to the user (i.e.,
abc123456789.html) and instructs the user to place it in their web
site as a name for a html document.
The user follows instructions and creates a blank document entitled
abc123456789.html and places it in their web site. After which the
user returns to the clearing house web site and request verification.
The clearing house asks for the users web site address, looks that
web address up in its dB, and checks to see if the unique html key is
present at the user site. If it is, then the process is verified, and
the user can pick a "user ID" (anything they want, which is not what
OpenID provides) and that would be confirmed as being linked to the
users web site.
The clearing house would now store the user's; a) web site address,
b) and a confirmed user ID. The unique ID and associated html would
no longer be needed. The user would be instructed as such and could
remove it from their web site if they wanted.
Now, everyone who has a blog and wants confirmed users would then
subscribe to the clearing house service via a form which simply
gathers the user's ID and the user's web site address and submits it
to the service for verification.
In other words, a logon for me would be:
UserID: tedd
Web Site: sperling.com
That information would then be sent to the clearing house and checked
for consistency. Is "tedd" a confirmed user ID for "sperling.com"? If
true, then the clearing house responds with "true" and the user can
input data, if not, then access is denied.
The only downside here is that it limits the users to having a web
site or access to somewhere where they can place a unique html.
The upside is that spammy probably won't want to go through the
trouble. And, I don't see an automated way to do this.
Am I wrong?
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 1:00PM
Subject: Re:
← Previous message | No next message
On 15/03/07, tedd < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Err, as I said -- "OpenID" -- as found here: http://openid.net/
>
> As for AOL and M$, I may be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that they
> will provide anything leading edge.
AOL are making the AIM Pages an OpenID provider, as have Six Apart's
Vox and many other sites.
> That's part of the problem -- a user may have to register with
> several providers to cover all the places where s/he may want to post.
No, no, no. Several providers make themselves OpenID providers, but
they're all OpenID compatible (that's the beauty of it - OpenID is
decentralised, unlike MS Passport) and so you only have to have a
minimum of one OpenID in order to log in to OpenID-enabled sites (such
as Magnolia - http://ma.gnolia.com/)
> Am I wrong?
Not sure, but you might want to check Simon Willison's OpenID
screencast and other blog posts, which explain it all rather well:
"OpenID's biggest problem is its learning curve. Using it as actually
really simple, but if you're not technical the amount of stuff you
have to know before you can understand it is enormous. If you are
technical, it just doesn't seem like it should work—there are a bunch
of questions that come up every time OpenID is discussed anywhere
("but surely there's nothing to stop someone else from spoofing your
ID") which OpenID has answers for, but which are easily
misunderstood."
http://simonwillison.net/2006/Dec/22/screencast/
http://simonwillison.net/2007/Mar/12/slidecast/
Best regards,
Tim