[gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
Darrell Shandrow
darrell.shandrow at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 22:13:33 CDT 2008
Hello Mike,
You've just got to admit that the Federation is inherently inconsistent on
its accessibility advocacy. NFB sued AOL while assisting the broadcast
industry to get out of FCC rules that would have provided four hours of DVS
on network television. NFB is suing Target despite the fact the site has
since become more accessible over the years, while it sides with Treasury
against accessible currency. I haven't seen NFB do a thing to help with
CAPTCHA access other than write a couple of articles and make some telephone
calls. My intent is actually not to necessarily beat the Federation over
the head as much as it is to simply call them as I see them with respect to
accessibility evangelism.
If the sighted have access, then I as a blind person should be "reasonably"
accomodated. That probably means somewhere between ignored and completely
excluded and having my access given to me on a silver platter. I shouldn't
be barred from accessing a site simply due to the fact I am unable to verify
my human status due to a physical lack of eye sight. Similarly, I shouldn't
lose my job over inaccessible software simply due to a circumstance totally
beyond my control and a lack of willingness to reasonably accomodate the
situation.
We must not allow anyone to kick us to the curb and toss us in the trash can
like yesterday's newspaper. Instead, we ought to try and get on the same
page and make our voices heard frequently and loudly when necessary across
the organizational lines on access concerns.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
Steve:
You are absolutely right. As you say, NFB *is* worried about the CAPTCHA
issue. And we do urge sites to install an audio equivalent upon ocasion.
However, we hold no illusions that this is a long-term solution to the
problem.
Where Darrell and I may differ is in our views as to what "equal access
with the sighted" means and to what extent this is a civil right on par
with, say, the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government
for redress of grievances, etc. AS I've seen you argue elsewhere, once
we start down the philosophical road of arguing that because the sighted
can easily do something or have automatic access to something, we, the
blind, should *also* have such access, if necessary at societal expense,
there's only one ultimate solution -- for us all to gain our sight. I
think we can all readily admit that few of us will have that
opportunity. Therefore, in treading that philosophical path, we are
ultimately painting ourselves into a corner.
Certainly, if society says by law that we, the blind, have the right to
a certain type of access, it goes without saying that said law should be
enforced. But to what extent we have the right to access in cyberspace
hasn't been fully determined yet and even then, it hasn't been
determined whether such access should be required down to the lowest
common denominator, i.e., everything text, or whether some savvy on the
part of screen-readers and/or the blind users can be expected.
I agree with Darrell that it makes little sense to design sites that are
inaccessible when accessibility is easily acommodated if done at the
design stage. But that's *our* thinking, that is, the thinking of a
small minority in the world. For the majority, it doesn't really matter
and in trying to craft solutions to the problems, we should at least
acknowledge this -- that and the fact that innovation and technological
change cannot and probably should not be stopped so that we will always
be behind the curve in access. Does this mean we shouldn't try to make
things more accessible? Of course not. But, at least to my way of
thinking, it means that we must temper our idealism with a dose of
reality.
Aside from convenience, what drives Darrell and all other access
advocates (including NFB) is the knowledge that certain aspects of
electronic life are slowly being taken away from us due to changes in
style and manner of operation of devices from computers to washers. And
we must craft a response that has some chance of working. Determining
what that response should be is no easy task and it is, in part, why we
have a R&D Committee.
But I would hope that Darrell would get off his horse of thinking NFB
"doesn't care" because staff has sighted help (as do most firms, groups
or other endeavors). I assure him and everyone else that I lived alone
for many years and I think he will acknowledge that my views have
remained relatively unchanged in this area since we've argued
good-naturedly over it for lo many years.
Steve was right: I was reacting to the one remark; I see such thinking
as ham-stringing us in the long run.
Mike Freeman
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Jacobson
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
Darrell,
Just to be sure it is clear, nobody in the NFB has said, to my
knowledge, that we should not deal with CAPTCHA's, and I know there are
some efforts to affect
change. I really don't think there is serious disagreement here so I
don't understand the feeling that there is an argument.
We have a whole range of problems with security schemes as you already
know, and it is not clear how the law applies. The existence of the
captchakiller web site
indicates more than anything to me that the life of captcha's is
short, but there will probably then be something else. We must become
part of the equasion when
security schemes are developed more than we are now. I really don't
think there is disagreement on this topic, though.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:54:45 -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
>Hi Sherri,
>Karen and I certainly understand your issue. Sometimes, it seems to
me that
>different blind people deal with accessibility concerns at differing
levels
>of priority according to the number and qualification of the sighted
people
>around them and their willingness to be available to meet their needs
at a
>moment's notice.
>I've visited the NFB national center a couple of times in the past,
and I
>can certainly understand why the Federation might be inconsistent and
rather
>spastic in the ways they do or don't prioritize equal access. There
are
>plenty of sighted people who have been hired to meet the needs of Dr.
Maurer
>and the rest of the citizens working in those buildings. I figure
that,
>once one has had a bunch of sighted people at their beck and call for
>awhile, one probably tends to forget what it is like for the rest of
the
>blind population out here living in the real world. Same is true for
those
>blind people who tend to lean heavily on sighted colleagues, friends
and
>family members to fill their access needs.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>You know, I make these somewhat tongue-in-cheek comments and it
starts a
>long controversial thread. What I was referring too is in my case,
and my
>case only, if I have to depend on someone in my family to read
anything to
>me, it is an arduous and frustrating task. For example, I needed to
fill out
>a form. I have people around who can do that. They have plenty of
time on
>their hands. No one would help and my financial planner finally just
came
>over and got the form from me and we filled it out. It took all of
five
>minutes. If I had the funds, I would hire a sighted reader, a driver,
etc.,
>but I don't so it isn't an option for me, so I am glad for the
software I
>have that does allow me to read my mail. And that's my two cents
worth.
>Sherri
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel Deutsch" <jdeutsch at dslextreme.com>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>Hi Raul,
>First of all, let me say that I don't have a dog in this fight, as
the
>expression goes. If someone feels comfortable using a sighted reader
in an
>instance like this, fine with me. If they don't begrudge this
approach to
>someone else, but feel strongly that it's not only more efficient but
more
>dignified to be able to overcome the CAPTCHA obstacle all by
themselves,
>either by pressuring for audio links or finding a way to break the
system,
>also fine by me.
>But I think the folks who are objecting to the "sighted reader"
approach (I
>think of this role more as " that of a sighted accomplice, for some
reason)
>must feel that the goal of independence means not having to ask
another
>person for assistance if at all possible. that's why it matters so
much to
>them, seems like a capitulation and, possibly, even a humiliation.
>as someone who's in the process of going blind by degrees (I'm using
"blind"
>in the most conventional meaning, here), one of the biggest
challenges I've
>faced over the past few years since my vision crossed the line from
being
>too poor to drive or make sense of movies to rendering me unable to
perform
>many more tasks was that of having to learn to ask others for help.
And I
>have found that although I'm happy to have something like Jaws at my
>disposal so I don't require a sighted reader for the vast majority of
my
>usual reading needs,in other situations, such as shopping for
groceries at
>my local food markets, I've not only given in to asking to have
someone
>assigned to me to go around and pluck items off the shelves and put
them
>into the shopping basket, I more often than not feel enriched by the
>interaction,. It took some time to accept feeling like this instead
of the
>shame and irrational resentment I felt at first-- I mean resentment
against
>those who were helping me-- and get over the undeniable loss of
anonymity
>(which is really prized by most people when they have to run their
errands;
>you drive alone to some store, wrestle a shopping cart out of the
parked
>stack, wheel it around the store raving things and tossing them into
the
>cart, and check out at the cashier line, and maybe that cashier is
the only
>person you acknowledge with at least a "how ya doing today" and a
smile
>before taking your bags and tossing them into your car. You haven't
been
>forced to interact with anyone else unless you really wanted to
discuss the
>French wines with the man who was standing beside you at that display
or
>flirt with the woman whose eyes met yours over the watermelons). Some
>sighted people these days manage to even get past the cashier without
a real
>affirmation that it's a fellow human being they're dealing with, but
rather
>talk on their cell phones while they watch the total come up on the
cash
>register and whip out money to pay with, exchanging nothing but a
glance
>with the cashier that says "here's the dough, now let's have my
change."
>This is the kind of privacy and anonymity in a public situation that
most
>people in the U.S., at least, prize as a social birthright. And
disability
>robs you of that, as well as rendering something like grocery
shopping
>massively inefficient and time-consuming compared to before, if
you're
>experiencing what I've been experiencing over recent years. for me,
that's
>still a bummer. but not the part about learning to reach out and ask
for
>assistance and then interrelate a little with the person who helps
me.
>That's all been an enrichment, despite my regrets. It took me a long
time to
>get to feeling this, though, I admit. Just saying this stuff in case
anyone
>else might be heartened to hear it.
>And the same with voting. Let's be realistic. I don't go to vote in a
>precinct where my vote is likely to arouse hostility on a helper's
part,
>whether or not someone else might even care about that. I live in an
area
>that's basically politically friendly for someone of my political
bent.
>whether or not everyone agrees on this state proposition or that
candidate
>for office. If I lived in a more threatening locale, I might wish
more
>fervently to have private voting access, but that's not my situation.
>And I'll also confess that the way I deal with the occasional CAPTCHA
that
>flummoxes me is to email a close friend, give him the user ID and
pass I'm
>using on that site, and have him log in for me so I can do whatever
it was I
>was trying to do. I don't feel diminished by that. But I'm also happy
that
>people campaign to get Web masters to reform on this issue by adding
audio.
>Both, not just this or that, black and white.
>Just a personal observation. I know that others may feel differently,
and
>I'm not trying to argue or rally anyone to my side. I just felt
inspired to
>share my own experience of something like this in all its meaning
beyond
>some political correctness issue.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Raul A. Gallegos" <raul at asmodean.net>
>To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:51 AM
>Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>I think it's rather amusing how the informative nature of the
original
>post has to degrade as to whether using sighted readers is good, bad,
>honorable, silly, or something else not mentioned as yet. Come on
folks.
>Whether you use the killer site or not, or whether you always use
>readers or not, what it comes down to is if you get the job done in
any
>way you can, that is what makes you independent. So, let's not split
hairs.
>ryan perdue said the following on 3/10/2008 3:03 AM:
>> Mike, why would it be an honorable thing?
>> Sometimes, it's easy to feel like you're getting in someone's way,
that
>> would make it worse.
>> Accessibility is a right and we need to be able to live
independently as
>> much as possible.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Darrell Shandrow" <darrell.shandrow at gmail.com>
>> To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>>
>>
>>> Hello Mike,
>>>
>>> I see you trotting out this "sighted reader" argument quite often.
>>> That's
>>> all fine and good, but...
>>>
>>> Why should there be screen readers and other assistive
technologies for
>>> the
>>> blind? Couldn't one just avail themselves of a sighted reader?
>>>
>>> Why should there be accessible voting? Why should the election
officials
>>> have to help us vote? Shouldn't we all be required to bring our
trusty
>>> sighted reader with us?
>>>
>>> Why should anyone purchase a K-NFB reader when they can plunk even
more
>>> money down over their lifetime to hire the services of a more
reliable
>>> sighted reader?
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
>>> To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:21 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Now waaaait a minute here.
>>>
>>> I agree that the site is progress. But using sighted readers is an
>>> honorable thing!
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Sherri
>>> To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, anything's better than having to wait for a sighted person!
>>> Thanks.
>>> I'll give it a try.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Steve Pattison" <srp at internode.on.net>
>>> To: "GUI Talk" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Access-L"
>>> <access-l at access-l.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:44 PM
>>> Subject: [gui-talk] Fwd: Captchakiller.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, 9 March 2008 9:33 AM
>>>
>>> Today, I heard about this site on another list, and I love it.
If you
>>> ever
>>> need to use a site that requires captchas,
>>> you will to. The url is
>>>
>>> www.captchakiller.com
>>>
>>> The first thing you will have to do is sign up for an account.
On the
>>> home
>>> page, they have a lot of forum posts and
>>> comments, but if you look for the crate an account link, you
should
>>> have
>>> no
>>> problems at all.
>>>
>>> Once you have an account, you can upload those bothersome
captchas,
>>> and
>>> the
>>> site will process them for you.
>>>
>>> I had a little trouble at first, but once you realize what they
want,
>>> it's
>>> fairly straight forward.
>>>
>>> I'll give you the step by step instructions.
>>> 1. go to the site that has the captcha.
>>> 2. find the exact page that has the captcha, and copy the url
that's
>>> in
>>> the
>>> address bar.
>>> 3. find the captcha on the page, and right click on it.
>>> 4. choose the save picture as option and save it to your hard
drive.
>>> 5. on the captchakiller site, choose the upload captcha link.
>>> 6. paste the page url into the url field.
>>> 7. hit the browse button on the page, and browse to the file you
saved
>>> on
>>> your computer.
>>> 8. after hitting open on the file, hit the submit button on the
page.
>>> 9. then choose the view captchas link on the page, and find the
most
>>> recently uploaded one. It should be the one at
>>> the top.
>>> 10 when you go through the table you'll result, and beside that
is
>>> what
>>> you
>>> have to type in for the captcha.
>>>
>>> This may sound a little complex, but it isn't so bad once you get
used
>>> to
>>> doing it. I'm not saying it's a solution to
>>> all our captcha problems, but it sure beats getting sighted help
every
>>> time
>>> you need a captcha interpreted.
>>>
>>> Another helpful hint I can give you, is to keep the captchakiller
>>> site,
>>> and
>>> the site you want the captcha for, opened at
>>> the same time. That way, you can get the captcha processed
quickly
>>> and
>>> enter it on the site before it expires.
>>>
>>> Hopefully, some people will find this site useful.
>>> --------
>>> Earle
>>> Skype, Twitter, and Yahoo: rowdyamerican
>>> MSN: peterson_33 at sympatico.ca
>>> Aim: rowdyamerican28
>>> ICQ: 155852055
>>>
>>> Regards Steve
>>> Email: srp at internode.on.net
>>> Windows Live Messenger: internetuser383 at hotmail.com
>>> Skype: steve1963
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gui-talk mailing list
>>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gui-talk mailing list
>> gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>--
>Raul A. Gallegos -- http://www.asmodean.net
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
>_______________________________________________
>gui-talk mailing list
>gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list