Adrian Trenholm

I am an ass… but CAPTCHA is still the devil’s work

Was it the provocation from Louise that made me do it, or am I just an ass by nature? Let me recap:

I post that I think CAPTCHA - a technique for stopping comment spam - is the devil’s work , for it is not accessible to visually impaired users. Louise comments: it is spam that is the devil’s work, and I should put up - suggest practical CAPTCHA alternatives - or shut up. I respond with alternatives and Louise - rightly - calls one of those alternatives into question, for discriminating against another group of users. She says the other alternatives are too resource-hungry. She asks:

Just how many blind people are using the internet anyway? And how many spammers?

It is then that the red mist of battle takes over. I roll out my dogma cannon and FIRE!

Louise, your view seems to be “discrimination is OK in this instance, because I only discriminate against a small number of people. Being inclusive takes too much effort.”

I disagree with your view very strongly. No matter how few are disadvantaged, discrimination, in my view, is not OK.

Like I said: was it Louise made me do it, or am I just an ass?

Having slept on it, I began to get some fresh perspective on this. I live in a flat on the second floor. There are no ramps or lifts. Does that not discriminate against people in wheelchairs? I can just about get away with it, because:

1. Our flat is not a public space and no one, in a wheel chair or not, is entitled to enter without permission. In public spaces, there will be places a disabled person is entitled to go which are inaccessible to him or her.
2. We do not own the stair well, so even if I did want to invite someone with a wheelchair to come up, I still cannot fit a lift or ramp.
3. Even if we had permission to fit a lift, we couldn’t afford it

So is there a more workable principle: discrimination in public spaces over which I have control, except when I don’t have the resources is not OK? Am I finally letting some shades of grey dominate my previously black and white thinking? Yes, I think I am. But what about web accessibility? Are CAPTCHAs OK now?

No, they are not. We are not, after all, taking something which is already inaccessible and applying massive resources to provide access (like building a lift in a block of flats). We are talking about taking something which is accessible by nature (the web) and then deliberately denying access. Using a CAPTCHA is like ripping the lifts and ramps out of an accessible building and replacing them all with stairs, then justifying your actions by saying the ramps and lifts made it easy for thieves to come into the building.

The web is a public space. The website owner has control over his or her site. And the resources required for the various alternative anti-spam methods are, in most cases, not significantly more than those required to implement CAPTCHA, and in some cases less. CAPTCHAs, in my view, are still not OK, and I would like to see them consigned to the scrapheap.

No doubt Louise will disagree. That’s OK. If Louise has a blog and wants to take up the discussion there, I will happily link to it. Through all this, I have learnt something new about myself and about blogging, specifically about how I respond to comments. I intend to be less of an ass in future. But one thing is sure, I won’t be shutting up about web accessibility any time soon.

16 comments August 25th, 2005

Let’s stop inaccessible CAPTCHAs

You have probably seen more and more CAPTCHAs in use on blog comments forms. The trend might grow now has made them widely available with a feature called . Widespread use of CAPTCHAs must be stopped.

What’s a CAPTCHA, I hear you ask? It is a tool to verify that a web form is being completed by a human being, as opposed to completed automatically by a spamming program. It works like this: a picture of a word or multi digit number is generated randomly and placed on the web form. The person filling in the form must read the word or number, then type it into a form field before submission. If the person’s answer matches the word or number in the picture, then the form is accepted. In theory at least, spamming machines cannot read pictures and therefore can’t beat the test.

So what’s the problem? CAPTCHAs discriminate heavily against anyone with a impaired vision . An odd font, which cannot be resized or read by a screen reader, on a busy background? The chances of a blind, partially sighted, or colour blind user getting past a CAPTCHA are slim. Even those of us with good vision have problems. Also, many CAPTCHA implementations can be cracked by machines . That may not be happening right now, but if enough people use CAPTCHAs, the spammers will adapt. So Blogger has just deployed a “solution” which might continue to let in spam, but which locks out a large minority of human beings.

Here’s what you can do:

1. For Blogger and BlogSpot users: CAPTCHAs (word verification for comments) are switched off by default. Leave them switched off.

2. If you are using a CAPTCHA already: stop. You are not a bad person - you probably didn’t consider all the implications. That’s OK. You know now. Please considering removing your CAPTCHA. Apart from the obvious reputation problems if your business is uncovered as a discriminator, you could be at legal risk under the Rehabilitation Act in the US or the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK.

3. If you come across a CAPTCHA: complain. I have avoided doing this to date, because I don’t want to look arrogant to other bloggers, but when one of the largest blog software providers starts to provide something so discriminatory as standard, we all have to speak up. Fill in the form, leave your comment or what have you, then add something like this:

   Please be aware: the image CAPTCHA device that you use to prevent spam on this form discriminates against blind, partially sighted and colour blind users. You may also be exposing yourself or your organisation to legal risk under anti-discrimination laws.

4. If you have a blog: please write a short post to explain the discriminatory nature of CAPTCHAs and ask that your readers do the same. Yes, I am proposing an anti-CAPTCHA meme.

When you post or complain in a comment, here are some good links to mention:

W3C: Inaccessibility of Visually-Oriented Anti-Robot Tests
D Keith Robinson’s: I hate CAPTCHA
David Naylor: CAPTCHA - is it good or evil
Eric Meyer: WP Gatekeeper (a rather technical post, but an interesting accessible alternative to using CAPTCHA)

If you can suggest other links for this list, then by all means leave them in the comments.

PS I have classified this under “Doing business” because so long as CAPTCHA usage, in particular, and accessibility, in general, are perceived as design or development issues, they won’t get the attention they deserve.

PPS Two rants in two posts? What the hell have they put in water round here?

7 comments August 22nd, 2005

Innuendo: a how to guide

OK, don’t blame me; this is all Brendan Connelly ’s fault. When it comes to a good innuendo, I really cannot help myself. Let me explain:

Three years ago, I had great success in my first Toastmasters Humorous Speech Contest with a Speech entitled “Innuendo a how to guide.” A friend asked afterwards if the competition was very stiff and I had to tell her that it was hard for all the speakers. I stood up in suit and tie and used a very business-like format (tell ‘em what you are going to tell ‘em, tell ‘em, tell ‘em what you told ‘em) to explain that lowest form of humour. The speech began:

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Innuendo: a How to Guide. We’ll be covering all the basic techniques today: How to make your own innuendo. How to spot innuendos made by others. And, of course, how to draw attention correctly to the innuendos that you make or spot. Finally, we’ll look at career options. But first the history

I cited examples from Milton and Shakespeare and, of course, Frankie Howard in “Up Pompei.” I taught the audience how to make Conscious First Person Innuendo, or CFPI for short, and we even covered the dangers of unconscious innuendo:

It is possible of course to make an Unconscious First Person Innuendo… but, if you find it slipping out by accident on a regular basis, do see a doctor about that.

And those career options I mentioned:

By now, you’re having so much fun, you’re thinking “But how can I make a career out of innuendo?” The only answer is advertising. The big knobs in advertising use innuendo all the time. My current favourite is the poster on the Underground featuring four ladies and a tub of margarine with the slogan:

“Only one of these women is getting enough.”

Brendan just brought it all flooding back with this naughty little post: Penetrating insight . Unconscious Visual Innuendo at its finest. I salute you, sir.

I will admit, I was given pause for thought as I wrote this. What if readers are offended by this post, or indeed Brendan’s original? Then I remembered my advice to my audience three years ago:

Always remember the words of Humphrey Lyttleton from Radio 4:

“if people see something rude in it, very few of them complain, because that would be confessing that they saw something rude in it.”

So there you have it. If you’re wondering why you are laughing so hard, it’s because you have a filthy mind.

2 comments August 11th, 2005

More on Qumana

Tris Hussey , one of the people behind new WYSIWYG blog editor, Qumana, commented on my previous post about the app. Well done Tris for responding so promptly and positively. I feel bad for not being a bit more clear in my post: any comment I make on Qumana, or BlogJet for that matter, will be coloured by my bias against WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). This is to put my original post in context and to explain why I think WYSIWYG editors in general (not Qumana in particular) are problematic. I want to address the concerns of business bloggers, not code geeks.

My opinion on WYSIWYG editors is that their main strength is also their greatest weakness - they make it far too easy for users to format text in all sorts of fancy fonts and colours. That ease of use sounds great in principle, but in practise, it likely compromises design consistency, costing you credibility with your customers. It is also my experience that users prefer fewer features and options, and I have had better feedback from providing simple text boxes with a lightweight Markdown -style syntax, than I have providing fully featured WYSIWYG.

First though let’s tackle Qumana’s WP issues. Yes, there are apparently WordPress integration problems with Qumana right now, but WP users who want WYSIWYG, should simply wait, not dismiss Qumana out of hand. This post on the Qumana blog shows that they have the problem high on their to-do list :

While the reviews have been very positive there are a several requests we’re hearing on a regular basis. First is getting Blogger titles right… Second is support for WordPress categories. Again in the queue and very important to us.

So top marks, Qumana, for listening and responding.

Now let’s get to the meat of it: I don’t like WYSIWYG. I said so in my blog editor group test :

BlogJet is a WYSIWYG editor, which is a boon for probably 99% of the world and a curse for the 1% of us who care - probably too much - about markup. I am in that 1%

So what is this obsession among web developers with “markup,” “clean code,” and the avoidance of “tag soup?” And more importantly, why should the business blogger care? There is all sorts I could write about the semantic web, the separation of content and style, and the importance of clean code, but I promised no geekery here. Setting aside the technical arguments, I think there is a very compelling business argument for avoiding WYSIWYG.

Let’s look at On Blogcrafting and Qumana , a post on the Qumana blog itself. Notice anything different? Read it in place on the Qumana blog home page . Now do you see? The post stands out because the font face, size and colour are completely different from the other posts.

The blogger has written his post in Microsoft Word then cut and pasted it into Qumana. Qumana has done what a WYSIWYG editor is supposed to do: faithfully reproduced all the Word formatting. The Word formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the blog. It looks well, amateur, doesn’t it, to have a post so inconsistent with the rest? I am not picking on Qumana. You can see one of my fellow authors at 173 Drury Lane, a BlogJet user, has done something similar in this post: Justin King speaking at the London Business Forum .

WYSIWYG editors, in their faithful reproduction of MS Word’s output, and their multifarious formatting options, make it almost inevitable that, somewhere along the line, you - or someone blogging with you - will produce inconsistent formatting on your blog. If you can live with that, stop reading now. But I think you should care, especially if you blog to promote your business and you want your readers to trust you.

I base that assertion on the fantastic research into web credibility done by the clever people at Stanford University. Research findings indicate that design, including typography and consistency, can have a big impact on whether users trust you. Inconsistent typography can give a negative impression. At number six in the Stanford Guidelines for Web Credibility (emphasis is mine):

We find that people quickly evaluate a site by visual design alone. When designing your site, pay attention to layout, typography , images, consistency issues , and more.

Achieving this kind of consistency is why business spends fortunes on “brand guidelines.” I just Googled “Brand Guidelines” and opened the first document I could find, that of the Junior Chambers International (pdf link). They say on Typefaces (page 12):

For continuity and simplicity, we use one typeface in our communications: Helvetica Neue. It has been chosen for its clarity, legibility and versatility… This is a universally available typeface. This applies to business documents, correspondence, promotional materials, displays, product labels, signs, Web pages and other media.

Small business can sometimes struggle to appear as “credible” as big business, but we can all improve our credibility by applying that kind of design consistency.

In addition, WYSIWYG is not always as easy to use as its proponents like to claim. I used to sell content management systems, as many of us did, by boasting “If you can use MS Word, you can use this system.” Most business users know MS Word, so it makes sense to provide them with a familiar environment, yes? Well, actually, no. Most business users know MS Word, and many find it an extremely frustrating application. They just want to write, not futz with formatting.

I did a small website a while ago for the Sterling chapter of the Business Network International , putting in a small text box (instead of WYSIWYG) coupled with instructions for a simple syntax for formatting and links. Chapter members loved it. One, whose business sold complex content management systems (including WYSIWYG), said it was the simplest way he had every seen to create web content and he was going to ask his techs to look at it to learn about usability.

It is definitely not as simple as text editor good, WYSIWYG bad. How you use a tool, is often more important than the tool you choose. But I advise everyone to weigh the business risks and advantages of each approach - text vs. WYSIWYG - very thoroughly. The way to maintain consistency - and therefore credibility with your users - may well be to limit your blog editing options to a text editor, and if you couple that with Markdown syntax, you may find that approach very easy to use, too.

5 comments June 22nd, 2005

On kettles, pots and link underlines

Clicking on a site my wife left open in my browser the other night ( London Zoo , designed by Other Media), I came across Tom Smith’s The Other Blog . Nice work, Mr Smith, and thanks for the link to Designing embraceable change , a great article by Jared Spool. Add The Other Blog to your feed reader now .

Something Tom wrote about link underlines bothered me, however, and I just can’t let it go. In a post about his blog’s redesign:

In a Tuftesque “remove non data ink” mood, I removed the underlines from links. I figure anyone reading this blog will have a fair idea of what a link is… and to me it just looks cleaner.

Trouble is, link underlines are data ink, at least to people with some form of colour blindness: roughly 5% of us, I believe. It’s not sufficient to say “my links are a different colour.” The W3C’s web accessibility guidelines are pretty clear on this:

Ensure that text and graphics are understandable when viewed without color.

If color alone is used to convey information, people who cannot differentiate between certain colors and users with devices that have non-color or non-visual displays will not receive the information.

So I was just about to indulge myself with this self-righteous little rant, when I realised I couldn’t exactly have a go at Tom’s kettle without shining up my pot first.

You see, in order to get going quickly with this blog, I used the otherwise excellent Blix theme for WordPress from King Cosmonaut . I simply unpacked the files and started writing. Only now, weeks into it, did I stop to think that my links are almost indistinguishable from their surrounding text, because they rely on colour alone, not underlines.

So a quick edit to my CSS file and links are, hopefully, a little clearer. In reality, there is a lot more I need to do, but this is a start. I really want to design my own custom theme. There, I have said it, now I am committed.

What do we think of the changes? More distinct, more accessible links, yes? And hopefully only slightly less pretty than before? Be honest - you didn’t even notice the difference did you?

Bonus link: check your site - how does it appear to users with common forms of colour blindness? - with Visicheck .

5 comments June 13th, 2005