skip to main content
10.1145/2556288.2557322acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Easy does it: more usable CAPTCHAs

Published:26 April 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Websites present users with puzzles called CAPTCHAs to curb abuse caused by computer algorithms masquerading as people. While CAPTCHAs are generally effective at stopping abuse, they might impair website usability if they are not properly designed. In this paper we describe how we designed two new CAPTCHA schemes for Google that focus on maximizing usability. We began by running an evaluation on Amazon Mechanical Turk with over 27,000 respondents to test the usability of different feature combinations. Then we studied user preferences using Google's consumer survey infrastructure. Finally, drawing on the insights gleaned during those studies, we tested our new captcha schemes first on Mechanical Turk and then on a fraction of production traffic. The resulting scheme is now an integral part of our production system and is served to millions of users. Our scheme achieved a 95.3% human accuracy, a 6.7.

References

  1. A. S. E. Ahmad, J. Yan, and M. Tayara. The robustness of google captchas. Technical report, New Castle, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. H. S. Baird and T. P. Riopka. Scattertype: a reading captcha resistant to segmentation attack. In Electronic Imaging 2005, pages 197--207. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Bernard, C. H. Liao, and M. Mills. The effects of font type and size on the legibility and reading time of online text by older adults. In CHI '01: CHI '01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 175--176, New York, NY, USA, 2001. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. P. Bigham and A. C. Cavender. Evaluating existing audio captchas and an interface optimized for non-visual use. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Bursztein, S. Bethard, J. C. Mitchell, D. Jurafsky, and C. Fabry. How good are humans at solving captchas' a large scale evaluation. In Security and Privacy, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. Bursztein, M. Martin, and J. Mitchell. Text-based captcha strengths and weaknesses. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 125--138. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Chellapilla, K. Larson, P. Simard, and M. Czerwinski. Computers beat humans at single character recognition in reading based human interaction proofs (hips). In CEAS, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. K. Chellapilla, K. Larson, P. Simard, and M. Czerwinski. Designing human friendly human interaction proofs (hips). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 711--720. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Cruz-Perez, O. Starostenko, F. Uceda-Ponga, V. Alarcon-Aquino, and L. Reyes-Cabrera. Breaking recaptchas with unpredictable collapse: heuristic character segmentation and recognition. In Pattern Recognition, pages 155--165. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Google. Google consumer surveys. http: //www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/home.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. S. K Chellapilla, K Larson and M. Czerwinski. Designing human friendly human interaction proofs. In ACM, editor, CHI05, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Kittur, E. H. Chi, and B. Suh. Crowdsourcing user studies with mechanical turk. In CHI '08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 453--456, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. K. A. Kluever and R. Zanibbi. Balancing usability and security in a video captcha. In SOUPS '09: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pages 1--11, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. K. Larson, M. van Dantzich, M. Czerwinski, and G. Robertson. Text in 3d: some legibility results. In CHI '00: CHI '00 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 145--146, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. McDonald, M. Mohebbi, and B. Slatkin. Comparing google consumer surveys to existing probability and non-probability based internet surveys. Technical report, Google, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. H. Motulsky and L. Ransnas. Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a practical and nonmathematical review. The FASEB journal, 1(5):365--374, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. T. Mustonen, M. Olkkonen, and J. Hakkinen. Examining mobile phone text legibility while walking. In CHI '04: CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 1243--1246, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. M. Naor. Verification of a human in the loop or Identification via the turing test. Available electronically: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/ human.ps, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Ross, L. Irani, M. Silberman, A. Zaldivar, and B. Tomlinson. Who are the crowdworkers': shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In CHI'10: 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 2863--2872. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Strutz. Data Fitting and Uncertainty: A Practical Introduction to Weighted Least Squares and Beyond. Vieweg and Teubner, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. K. Thomas, D. McCoy, C. Grier, A. Kolcz, and V. Paxson. Trafficking Fraudulent Accounts: The Role of the Underground Market in Twitter Spam and Abuse. In Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium, August 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Toomim, T. Kriplean, C. P "ortner, and J. Landay. Utility of human-computer interactions: toward a science of preference measurement. In Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 2275--2284. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Y. Xu, G. Reynaga, S. Chiasson, J.-M. Frahm, F. Monrose, and P. van Oorschot. Security and usability challenges of moving-object captchas: Decoding codewords in motion. In Usenix Security, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Yan and A. S. E. Ahmad. A low-cost attack on a microsoft captcha. http://bit.ly/nfpEis, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. Yan and A. S. El Ahmad. Usability of captchas or usability issues in captcha design. In SOUPS '08: Proceedings of the 4th symposium on Usable privacy and security, pages 44--52, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Easy does it: more usable CAPTCHAs

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2014
        4206 pages
        ISBN:9781450324731
        DOI:10.1145/2556288

        Copyright © 2014 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 26 April 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '14 Paper Acceptance Rate465of2,043submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader