@ppatel People don't talk enough about how fucking shit CAPTCHA is. It doesn't even catch spam effectively. In my last contract I argued and argued to replace it with a honey pot. We did so and went from 100 plus spam emails a day to zero, and got rid of the accessibility barrier with it.
@heydon Despite so much evidence, people just refuse to listen. CAPTCHA companies have no incentive to tell implementers that the crap tun of data collected by people solving CAPTCHAs is their business model.
@heydon@ppatel I’m still sore that WCAG 2.2 said “yeah, CAPTCHAs are OK”. Such an unnecessary exception. (And then it’s only for authentication anyway, not for registering an account. Useless.)
@yatil@heydon I was tearing my hair out when I read the draft. There are so many other techniques that are more secure, accessible, and less frustrating for people who actually have to use the web site.
@heydon@hugoestr@ppatel aren’t honeypots about as (in)effective though? 🤔 I feel like most modern bots just check computed styles whether an input is visually hidden and leave that empty. 😅
@amxmln@hugoestr@ppatel Like I said, it reduced spam to zero. And for months. Still is doing so, far as I'm aware. No method is perfect, but CAPTCHA is both imperfect and massively obstructive and inaccessible.
@heydon oh yeah, I completely agree that captchas are terrible for accessibility and user experience.
I’ve recently added a honeypot to a client’s site and according to them, it did nothing. Still trying other ways, a captcha will be a very last resort to placate them. 😅
@Nickname I generally don't have a problem with Google's CAPTCHA, which is what this Mozilla add-on is supposed to solve. It's a good reference for some people though.
Add comment