[access-uk] Re: A verification graphic solution perhaps?

  • From: "Ray's Home" <rays-home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:25:13 -0000

Thanks for your thoughts Mel.

There's an underlying assumption in a good deal of where I am coming from, 
namely, that larger companies could well afford to assign such verification 
duties to appropriately trained staff, on a number alocated to a free, or local 
rate call number.  Remember too that we are not the only 'print handicapped' 
users on the net.  I suppose too there's a knee jerk reaction against the 
relentless removal of human input in service provision, which doesn't seem to 
include selling.  So often a different story when we need support, goGod help 
us!

I would have thought that maybe this method, with the conditions I've mentioned 
above, wouldn't be an unacceptable solution.  It could be that interactive 
screen reader verification on the site could have a lot going for it, as long 
as it couldn't be nobbled/highjacked by the ever present anti-social presencees 
on the net.
Ray

Personal emails:  Email me at
mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mel Spooner" <mel.spooner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Hi Ray,

You asked about the phone and what is wrong with having it as part of the
process.  I personally feel strongly that I shouldn't have to make an
additional phone call to do what everyone else can do online.  Some
companies charge for this, Royal Mail being one of them, and also there is
the problem of staff not being aware of the process as it will be an
infrequently asked question, as well as the possibility of being held in a
queuing system.  

I just feel that when I am registering with a site, for instance, I wish
to do it immediately and not have the inconvenience of a phone call.  I'm
sure there must be other ways around this without resorting to the phone.

Mel

Mel Spooner
edIT Help Desk
Nottinghamshire County Council
Tel   0115 854 6116
Email mel.spooner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

-----Original Message-----
From: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ray's Home
Sent: 01 March 2006 09:57
To: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [access-uk] Re: A verification graphic solution perhaps?


Re. screen reader validation, this is an idea that has been floated on the
Window-Eyes discussion list, especially regarding PDf files and security
settings.  Although some WE users have tended to be luke warm about it, I
wouldn't be surprised if Doug at GW doesn't come up with something like
this seeing as GW's approach is more on the side of working with software
vendors to solve problems like this.

I will not claim to know the ins and outs of this business of signing up
on sites and the exact 'why' of graphical means to secure
identification/authentication, but even PayPal has to resort to a phone
call, albeit an automated one, to activate an account as 'verified'.  You
can be caught out by that one if you have anonymous call barring in
operation.  Still, my point is, what is so very wrong with the phone as
part of a security system?  Genuinely asking, not making a point as such.
Ray

Personal emails:  Email me at
mailto:ray-48@xxxxxxxx

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James O'Dell" <jamesodell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>fication graphic solution
perhaps?


| Maybe, and I think the questions would probably have to be dynamically
| updated every day or so by site administrators, rather than lying in a 
| database somewhere , because that approach wouldn't take bot designers
very 
| long to get around.  I do like the idea of a Screen Reader Validation 
| module, not least because it would make it far easier for us to access
sites 
| and content written in other languages (paypal Spain, for example,  does
not 
| have the audio version of the visual verification).  The only problem I
can 
| see with this approach is that a major spammer might well be prepared to

| spend $1000 on a screen reader, or even $100 on something like Freedom
Box, 
| if it gives them apparently legitimate access to Hotmail, Yahoo, Pay
Pal, 
| political votes and discussion boards etc.  The only way round this I
can 
| see would be for the SRVM to submit information about the user e.g. name
and 
| serial number back to  the Screen Reader manufacturer each time it was 
| accessed, and I wonder how popular that would be.
| 
| James
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Barry" <bbinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 5:33 PM
| Subject: [access-uk] Re: A verification graphic solution perhaps?
| 
| 
| >I like the idea of a question.  It could be so simple that anyone 
| >could  answer it, such as "Is the queen male or female", "Is water a 
| >gas, solid  or  liquid" and "How many legs does the average person 
| >have"? If the answer is  different every time, but still very simple 
| >, it would be difficult for  the
| > average geek to set a robot to answer it.  However, the sound files
used 
| > to
| > register a person in place of graphics are encrypted so that they are 
| > still
| > quite good - voice recognition software cannot recognise them.
| >
| > Barry
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:25 PM
| > Subject: [access-uk] A verification graphic solution perhaps?
| >
| >
| > HI all,
| >
| > I just drafted what I I hope will be a thought provoking email about 
| > registration verification graphics for an internal accessibility 
| > list here at work. The BBC are seeking new solutions to the problem 
| > and currently have the idea to provide an 0800 support number 
| > alongside the website.
| >
| > The following are some ideas I had on a possible web based solution, 
| > Be good to get feedback off it. Good idea or bad idea?
| >
| > This whole problem is about Verification graphics. Visually impaired 
| > people either can't decipher the complexity because of low vision or 
| > just can't read a graphic at all if they have no sight. 
| > Screenreaders, obviously, can't read graphics.
| >
| > Follow my train of thought here ...
| >
| > If screenreaders COULD read the verification graphics, then so could 
| > any bit of software cobbled together by a script kiddie. In fact, 
| > that's why the graphics work so well for sighted users ... and 
| > indeed why they work so badly for visually impaired ones. If it were 
| > readable in any way, then scripters could setup mail accounts, swing 
| > votes, etc en masse. An issue for spamming and integrity of many 
| > online services.
| >
| > Other solutions in the past, such as the one used by Hotmail,  have 
| > involved speech. A sound file with a word in it is generated. Speech 
| > recognition software exists, however, thought though I'm sure this 
| > is a pretty good solution with more thought.
| >
| > So, we're looking at something that isn't an alphanumeric ascii 
| > solution.
| >
| > The verification graphics are fancily written words so that even the 
| > best OCR software can't read it. It relies on your brain to decipher 
| > things too complex for computers.
| >
| > So, why not another solution that is too complex for computers to 
| > easily crack.
| >
| > What if the web user was given an alternative verification ... i.e. 
| > given the verification graphic and also a riddle or quiz?
| >
| > E.g. 1:  "Work out the answer to the following and tap it into the 
| > edit field below"
| >
| > E.g. 2:  "What is the next number in this sequence?"
| >
| > E.g. 4: "What is the capital of China?"
| >
| > E.g. 3: "the cat sat on the --- .... Fill in the blank word"
| >
| > This approach is one a computer program can't easily replicate. It 
| > asks the user to use their brain to answer a question.
| >
| > Any thoughts appreciated. Any flaws in my plan most welcome. Better 
| > more appropriate examples also welcome.
| >
| > ...Damon
| >
|

** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq



E-mails and any attachments from Nottinghamshire County Council are 
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately by replying to the e-mail, and then delete it without making copies 
or using it in any other way.

Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not 
necessarily represent those of Nottinghamshire County Council unless otherwise 
specifically stated.

Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses 
before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before 
opening attachments, since the County Council accepts no responsibility for 
loss or damage caused by software viruses.

Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection 
Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the contents may have to be 
disclosed in response to a request.

Nottinghamshire County Council Legal Disclaimer




** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe]
** If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** and in the Subject line type
** unsubscribe
** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the
** immediately-following link:-
** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq]
** or send a message, to
** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq

Other related posts: