|
|
.oO(Xander Zerge)
>> > It also stops users. That's reason enough for me to not use or even
> > recommend it. Never.
> >
> > Not argumented. How can it stop users?
> > It stops users without JS.
>
> So, images stops users with browsers with no images
Wrong.
> > What is more important to you - to fight spam bots or to make a site
> > userfriendly? It seems that you prefer the first, while I definitely do
> > the latter, even if that might mean 1 or 2 form spams a day. It's just a
> > small price I have to pay for the benefit of my visitors.
>
> I am fighting spam bots with higher importance of user friendliess than
>captcha has.
This wasn't my question. Maybe this is easier for you:
( ) fight spam bots
( ) make site userfriendly
Pick one.
> >and user has no need to do
> >something.
>
> > Their browser and machine have to.
>
> Their machine and browser does something always. What is the problem here? :-)
Unnecessary overhead. Script execution can take a measurable amount of
time on less powerful machines.
> > A proper form would be even smaller and faster.
> Adding captcha image increases load size on few KB, and adds additional HTTP
>request, what also takes time.
This wasn't what I said. Form efficiency in descending order:
1) plain HTML form
2) JS-based "encryption"
3) CAPTCHAs
> > Yes, if they can! Not all browsers support JS and even if they do it
> > might not possible for a user to enable it.
> They can change a browser
Yes, _if_ they can. If they can't enable JS, it's also quite unlikely
that they will be able to use another browser.
> > The amount of users that can be reached with a properly built non-JS
> > site will _always_ be higher than with a site relying on JS, hence
> > relying on JS _is_ an exclusion of users.
>
> The same is about captcha. The difference is in percentage of visitor losses.
You seem to find it OK to lose visitors. I don't.
> > No. And? If I want to protect mail addresses from being spammed I
> > wouldn't publish them at all. No reason to "encrypt" them, there are
> > better ways, which even work for users without JS.
>
> Your arguments are weak again. You are talking about something what is better
>but you are not talking what that is. What are those "better ways"?
> If you are talking about e-mail addresses rendered as images, requiring
>visitors to type them by hands in e-mail client, instead of single click
>opening new e-mail message window with address/subject prefilled, I will say
>"no, thank you".
That was surely not what I meant. Some other general ideas in no
particular order:
* contact form
* user interaction (e.g. checkbox) to reveal the mail addresses
* addresses only shown to authenticated users
* server-side spam filters
* ...
Micha
|
|