(no subject)

[theweaselking]

KittenAuth: A human detector that replaces all the ugly and stupid Captcha crap, and instead simply requires that you click on the correct three fuzzy critters in order to gain access to whatever you're keeping the robots out of.

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

It would be nice if it actually worked, you know.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It was working for me 10 minutes ago. Three kitten pictures = message that you've succeeded. Any non-kitten pictures = message that you've failed.

It doesn't let you *in* anywhere. This is just a demonstration, to show how you *could* use this in place of the ugly "type the word that you see to the left of this box" things that show up to prevent robots from signing up for things.

[jerril]

The problem with ALL these systems is that blind people cannot sign up for anything using them. You make your site totally inaccessable.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

Paypal has a (text, therefore text-2-speechable) link next to the box-with-letters which essentially reads those same letters out as audio.

No real reason to shut out the blind.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If your text-to-speech program can find it, then why can't the robot reading the page?

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

The link just says "click on this if you're blind", or something to that effect, what it links to is presumably some audio file or other. So the critical letters are tex2speeched serverside rather than clientside, and the 'bot doesn't get to look in.

[waterspyder.livejournal.com]

There are systems being implemented which have users submit a photo, and then the computer tosses it in with a bunch of others. The user will be the only one to know which one is theirs. There are also systems which have you repeat 2 or more times to gain entry to avoid random guessing, and other variants still which blur the picture and only humans currently posses the capability to figure out which blurred picture is the same as the original they were shown.

[jerril]

Really neat, but again, still depends on the user being one of the (admitedly very common) kinds of humans that can do this sort of thing.

Admitedly, anything with photos doesn't forbid dyslectics, unlike the word-distort test.

[scixual.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent!

[harald387.livejournal.com]

It's broken.

The system clearly can't tell which pictures are kittens and which aren't.

-K

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

I've yet to see any evidence of that. What's your proof?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Take a look at his journal history. Look for posts titled "Kitten break!"

Then you will understand.