Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I know that the subject is very inflamatory, but I have a good reason for it. In my last job I worked on some fairly large web projects, one of the very important things to do (from both a "its the right thing" and a "don't want to get sued" perspect) was to make those websites accessible.

    This means that the website should be able to be read in a screen reader, that all images have an apropriate ALT tag, and colors used on the pages are propperly contrasting for those that are color blind (a full 10% of t

    • Regardless of where you are going to use it - its still the wrong approach - wouldn't it be far better for both the Slash engine and your employer to use a choker that locks out users based on overly-heavy use (a sign of bots and abuse or addiction) or mis-use or karma or a combination of both.

      I can't think of any site or situation where it would be more help than hinderence.
      --

      @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
      print reverse @JAPH;
      • "wouldn't it be far better for both the Slash engine and your employer to use a choker that locks out users based on overly-heavy use (a sign of bots and abuse or addiction) or mis-use or karma or a combination of both."

        This is already done in a number of ways. Sometimes it is not enough.

        "I can't think of any site or situation where it would be more help than hinderence."

        That's OK, as long as you recognize that your inability to imagine such situations does not mean none exist.

        The reason you can

        • I don't run a Slash site, but I *have* given this a lot of thought.

          Obviously, it's a very difficult issue that has to balance usability (I am NOT going to enter a 44 digit key every time I post) vs reliability (putting the security image contents in an ALT tag would be braindead).

          It seems that the first thing that's required is lack of anonominity, at least as far as the site is concerned. You may post as Anonymous Coward, but it should still require you to be a registered user. It does sort of limit the number of people that inflammatory comments could be made by (you know it has to be 1 of 'n' people), but with a large enough user base, it's as good as being really anonymous.

          It seems to me that anything that's easy enough for a person to use is easy enough for a 'bot to work around. Certain types of authentication are impracticle. Audio clips limit the site to those with soundcards. I've never gotten sound working right on my ThinkPad 1411i. So I shouldn't be able to post because I have a disadvantaged machine? Not to mention I would bet someones paycheck that there are more hearing impaired web users than there are visually impaired ones.

          Security requiring visual cues obviously has a problem for the visually impaired, (again) not to mention those running on less capable machines. If I have a monochrome display, can I read it? What if I'm using a text browser? And if the security image accomodates a text browser somehow, that's only going to make the 'bot writing easier, because we're living in a ASCII world. So seemingly, that method is out.

          Olfactory? Not bloody likely. Facial recognition? Nope. Biometrics? Not likely again.

          The only thing I can see is making the registration process sufficiently robust to say that you have an accountable human at the far end. Since notes can only be posted by registered users, we know that someone, be it a person or person with a 'bot, is accountable. Now the question becomes "How do we certify it's a person in the registration process?"

          This allows us a little more leeway, since it's a one time deal. Obviously, if we take too long to return a registration (like waiting 24 hours), you'll lose interest in people joining, since many people join to provide feedback immediately on a point that interests them. After 24 hours, *I'm* not going to bother commenting on a topic, especially if it's time sensitive, like humor.

          I don't know what the answer is for a reliable registration process that's timely and accurate and accomodating to disabilities and various hardware. We do know that Tim Berners Lee vision of the net was accessability, and disabilities and hardware limitations (at least to a point) shouldn't limit that accessability. Maybe you have to play a full game of 'Punch the Monkey', and get a score 7 or higher. On the other hand, a friend and I are messing around with the idea of AI and GA to play Defender, and if that leads to anything, that might be too easy to defeat.

          At any rate, this is where I would focus my energies. If a non-validated person can't post, that means posts can only come from a user that's registered, and therefore, there's a chain of accountability.

          --jcwren

          BTW, how about making the dang text entry box for comments larger. You get verbose, and it's a pain in the arse to edit in.