Comments on: Another Google Access Issue: Visual Verification System http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12 A Carroll Tech blog about Accessibility Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:14:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: All About Access » Blog Archive » Google’s Visual Verification Gone! (almost) http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-11 All About Access » Blog Archive » Google’s Visual Verification Gone! (almost) Fri, 18 Mar 2005 23:01:18 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-11 [...] Google’s Visual Verification Gone! (almost) As you may recall from my March 8th article and/or from Darrell&# [...] [...] Google’s Visual Verification Gone! (almost) As you may recall from my March 8th article and/or from Darrell&# [...]

]]> By: Darrell http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-10 Darrell Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:42:18 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-10 It is important to note that the November 2003 Braille Monitor article did, ultimately, cause Network Solutions to quietly remove its visual verification scheme altogether. It has been possible for awhile to browse to http://www.networksolutions.com to perform a Whois domain name search. I think advocacy and overall raising awareness of accessibility is not only helpful but absolutely necessary if we are to secure our futures as blind people seeking full and continued participation in society. Accessibility enables participation while inaccessibility slams all doors shut on us. It is important to note that the November 2003 Braille Monitor article did, ultimately, cause Network Solutions to quietly remove its visual verification scheme altogether. It has been possible for awhile to browse to http://www.networksolutions.com to perform a Whois domain name search. I think advocacy and overall raising awareness of accessibility is not only helpful but absolutely necessary if we are to secure our futures as blind people seeking full and continued participation in society. Accessibility enables participation while inaccessibility slams all doors shut on us.

]]> By: Joanie http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-8 Joanie Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:27:02 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-8 Darrell mentioned an article in the November 2003 Braille Monitor. I just found it. If you are interested, read<a href="http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm03/bm0311/bm031104.htm" Title="Graphical Verification: Another Accessibility Challenge"> Graphical Verification: Another Accessibility Challenge</a>. Darrell mentioned an article in the November 2003 Braille Monitor. I just found it. If you are interested, read Graphical Verification: Another Accessibility Challenge.

]]> By: Joanie http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-7 Joanie Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:42:57 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-7 Darrell, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Visual verification, without an accessible alternative being provided at the very same time, is not right. And we must respond. Any ideas about how??? Maybe a blog-based campaign that identifies the companies that use these systems and their contact information? I have good news, though, Yahoo just called and was ready to set me up for my new account. Unfortunately, my honesty got in the way -- stupid, stupid conscience!! (grin) -- and I fessed up to being sighted and an existing user. However, I got some good information about the process which I'll post shortly. Like I said before, I totally agree with your statements, but I still have to give credit to the folks at Yahoo for providing an alternative -- not the best alternative, not a fully equal alternative, but far more of an alternative than other companies provide. Darrell, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Visual verification, without an accessible alternative being provided at the very same time, is not right. And we must respond. Any ideas about how??? Maybe a blog-based campaign that identifies the companies that use these systems and their contact information?

I have good news, though, Yahoo just called and was ready to set me up for my new account. Unfortunately, my honesty got in the way—stupid, stupid conscience!! (grin)—and I fessed up to being sighted and an existing user. However, I got some good information about the process which I’ll post shortly. Like I said before, I totally agree with your statements, but I still have to give credit to the folks at Yahoo for providing an alternative—not the best alternative, not a fully equal alternative, but far more of an alternative than other companies provide.

]]> By: Darrell http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-6 Darrell Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:01:21 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-6 I would also like to state unequivocally that these inaccessible visual verification tests, by their very nature, actually represent a violation of our rights as fully living and breathing human beings. The purpose of these tests is to test for the presence of a human being as opposed to an automated program or script running on a computer. Well, I am most certainly human, but I am also not able to pass the test due to an artificial barrier. We're not computers, lower forms of animal life or otherwise sub-human. We're fully living and breathing human beings, possessing all the rights and responsibilities associated with that status. Those who insist on inaccessible visual verification without making reasonable accomodations are telling us that we are to be considered sub-human, not worth providing the accomodations necessary for us to participate equally in the product or service being offered. Inaccessibility, such as inaccessible visual verification, is thus an afront to our very humanity. We must respond so as to insist on the removal of unnecessary, artificial barriers to our participation! I would also like to state unequivocally that these inaccessible visual verification tests, by their very nature, actually represent a violation of our rights as fully living and breathing human beings. The purpose of these tests is to test for the presence of a human being as opposed to an automated program or script running on a computer. Well, I am most certainly human, but I am also not able to pass the test due to an artificial barrier. We’re not computers, lower forms of animal life or otherwise sub-human. We’re fully living and breathing human beings, possessing all the rights and responsibilities associated with that status. Those who insist on inaccessible visual verification without making reasonable accomodations are telling us that we are to be considered sub-human, not worth providing the accomodations necessary for us to participate equally in the product or service being offered. Inaccessibility, such as inaccessible visual verification, is thus an afront to our very humanity. We must respond so as to insist on the removal of unnecessary, artificial barriers to our participation!

]]> By: Darrell http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-5 Darrell Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:54:33 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-5 I sent Tom an e-mail but received absolutely no response. According to an article in the November 2003 Braille monitor, NFB apparently worked with AOL and ultimately decided this useless approach would be acceptable! All this represents is a blackhole into which we are stuffed with no return. It does not represent any accessibility at all when the calls are not answered or returned in a timely manner. I sent Tom an e-mail but received absolutely no response. According to an article in the November 2003 Braille monitor, NFB apparently worked with AOL and ultimately decided this useless approach would be acceptable! All this represents is a blackhole into which we are stuffed with no return. It does not represent any accessibility at all when the calls are not answered or returned in a timely manner.

]]> By: Joanie http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-4 Joanie Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:58:22 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-4 I guess I am showing my naiveté in believing Yahoo's claim sight unseen as it were. So I just filled out their form and left my home number. Let's see how long it takes for them to call. Stay tuned! That's too bad about AIM/AOL.... (frown) Did you pass along your experience to Tom Wlodkowski? If anyone there would listen and care, I think it would be Tom. I guess I am showing my naiveté in believing Yahoo’s claim sight unseen as it were. So I just filled out their form and left my home number. Let’s see how long it takes for them to call. Stay tuned!

That’s too bad about AIM/AOL…. (frown) Did you pass along your experience to Tom Wlodkowski? If anyone there would listen and care, I think it would be Tom.

]]> By: Darrell http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-3 Darrell Wed, 09 Mar 2005 03:29:01 +0000 http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/12#comment-3 I would add that I do not consider the need to contact a customer service representative to complete visual verification as an acceptable alternative. It is nice to have this as an alternative to audio verification, but not as the sole means of providing accessibility. In these cases, the telephone numbers provided are almost never answered and leaving messages results in no returned calls to complete the process. It almost feels like the companies that employ this practice have no real intention of following through with the accomodation by actually answering the phones and communicating with us. There are other problems with the live telephone approach, such as possible security issues for blind customers, but they're really not even worth covering since the telephones aren't answered and the calls are not returned! The AIM service provides an excellent example of just how their "accessibility" works with respect to visual verification. As you complete the form to create a new screen name, you are presented with a visual verification test. Text is supplied for those of us who are blind to call a customer service representative for assistance with the completion of this process. I called the number, but no one answered the call and I never received a return call to follow up on the message I left. After doing some additional research, I just decided to contact AOL technical support, which was also no help after almost two hours on the phone! I have heard similar horror stories from other blind people, so I know the human telephone approach to "accessible" visual verification is useless and completely unacceptable. I would add that I do not consider the need to contact a customer service representative to complete visual verification as an acceptable alternative. It is nice to have this as an alternative to audio verification, but not as the sole means of providing accessibility. In these cases, the telephone numbers provided are almost never answered and leaving messages results in no returned calls to complete the process. It almost feels like the companies that employ this practice have no real intention of following through with the accomodation by actually answering the phones and communicating with us. There are other problems with the live telephone approach, such as possible security issues for blind customers, but they’re really not even worth covering since the telephones aren’t answered and the calls are not returned!

The AIM service provides an excellent example of just how their “accessibility” works with respect to visual verification. As you complete the form to create a new screen name, you are presented with a visual verification test. Text is supplied for those of us who are blind to call a customer service representative for assistance with the completion of this process. I called the number, but no one answered the call and I never received a return call to follow up on the message I left. After doing some additional research, I just decided to contact AOL technical support, which was also no help after almost two hours on the phone! I have heard similar horror stories from other blind people, so I know the human telephone approach to “accessible” visual verification is useless and completely unacceptable.

]]>