I don't see the problem. It's easy for people to see the word and type it in. Lightweight but not insignificant measure of protection. Compared with no protecti

I don't see the problem. It's easy for people to see the word and type it in. Lightweight but not insignificant measure of protection. Compared with no protection, this form will receive less spam. There is no impact on the user except a better user experience. The corporate developer may have looked at the spam levels and decided that a basic measure would be fine considering the exposure to the page, or other reasons. CAPTCHA is anti-people. It's a step back to the dark ages every time a website asks you to type in a fuzzy word, often just a jumbled string making it even worse for reading. Surprised some comments are taking aim at the developer, who at least isn't using the stupidly backwards, barely visible full version of captcha. Check en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA it's a joke that the examples posted there seem so much easier than the overly-abstract usual suspects out there in reality. That wikipedia article needs a new section, something like 'criticisms' or 'UX Fail'. D&B's 'captcha' is whack? So is Google's.