Re^2: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable?

Just a thought, but for a blind person to be using the internet, they usually have some kind of speech reader, so couldn't the be an alternative that sends them .wav file which they listen to and retype?

It should be possible to make the .wav files sufficiently different each time that it would be pretty akward to automate the response.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco.

Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

Comment on Re^2: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable? by Joost (Canon) on Apr 19, 2005 at 15:11 UTC
I think quite a lot of blind people actually use a braille reader, so counting on audio isn't foolproof, though I guess most will have audio anyway - unless they also have hearing problems. However, creating audio checks is hard, apparently: (From the CNET article referenced in the w3c article mentioned above): Microsoft's Hotmail service provides an audio alternative to its visual test, in which letters are read aloud instead of being displayed in a graphical file. But one such audio file--deliberately garbled to prevent its being read by a computer--was unintelligible to four out of four CNET News.com reporters, all with good hearing, who tried to decipher it. It's better than no alternative, ofcourse. "What should it profit a man, if he should win a flame war, yet lose his cool?"	[reply]
Re^4: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 19, 2005 at 16:12 UTC
I have several blind people among my closest friends, and none use a braille reader. Braille readers are awkward - not only takes it extra space on your desk, it also requires you to move your hands from the keyboard to the reader - you can't read and write at the same time. They are also expensive - if you have multiple computers, you'd need multiple braille readers. And then there's the encumberance factor - can you imagine using a braille reader in combination with a laptop? It's much easier to carry a CD with a screen reader with you.	[reply]
Re^4: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable? by jhourcle (Prior) on Apr 19, 2005 at 15:43 UTC
I've never tried it, but when I've seen blind people using JAWS, they can understand what's being read to them, while I can't. It's possible that a sound clip was intentionally set up for a person who is used to using a text reader, and so is being played at a much faster speed than a normal conversation. Of course, this doesn't help those people who just have bad vision, that they can normally get by with screen magnification or the like, and can't understand the images. I think the following link takes you to the video example that I saw in a 508 class last year. (I don't have Real installed, so I can't check it.). If it is, it shows what it's like for people visiting websites with screen readers and the like: Web Accessibility From the User's Perspective Update: I tracked down my notes from the training, and the video was Introduction to the Screen Reader, and has both Real and QuickTime versions.	[reply]
Re^5: Is there a CPAN module that distorts an image to make it only human-readable? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 19, 2005 at 16:15 UTC
It takes training to understand JAWS. And each installation is taylorred to the wishes (and capabilities) of each individual. I've blind friends who both use JAWS, but who find it quite difficult to use each other installation. (Differences are mostly in speed and pitch).	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks