Your visitors that can't spell their own email address is likely to screw your obfuscated address up as well. I've seen email in my outbound queue to whatever@domain.dot.tld and variations. I wouldn't be surprised if someone never realizes that AT is @ (in non-English speaking locales, @=at is not at all obvious. In the Nordic languages it's known as (elephant's) trunk-A. ) and gives up before the mail leaving the client.
It hides your e-mail behind a CAPTCHA, but once it's solved it's an actual, well-formed address, that can be copied or clicked. Also, it's very clear if you've solved the CAPTCHA - it's no always clear if solved the "riddle" of an obfuscation correctly.
> ... visitors that can't spell their own email address
> ... likely to screw your obfuscated address up as well
> ... it's no always clear if solved the "riddle" of an
> obfuscation correctly.
They are likely to screw it up, but at least they get the feedback of a bounced email. There is a recovery mode, and it's their problem.
With an incorrectly spelled return address on a form there is no recovery mode at all, and they get no feedback that it hasn't worked.
Isn't that the point of the article? That you are offloading work onto the peopel you ostensibly want to get in touch with you?
(I'm not saying it's wrong for you to do so, just that your statement seems to line up perfectly with the author's premise that obfuscating your email address is taking your problem and making it their problem).
The author suggests that using a form makes the problem go away. My experience says that people who can't de-obfuscate an email address frequently can't type their return address correctly. The obfuscated address gives them feedback in the form of a bounced email, and thereby gives a recovery mode. The incorrect return address in the form gives no recovery mode at all.
To me, that's conclusive proof that the form is worse than the obfuscated address.
Further, there's a balance to be achieved. I've analysed the types of people I want to contact me, and of those who can't work out my address there are two types. One type is those that I really don't care about - nuisance, spam, content-free, or time-wasters. The others that I do care about usually have a different route to me, one that's specifically tailored to them and made as easy as possible. That one has a specially designed anti-spam measure built into it.
I have to agree with your disdain for forms. I hope that when given the choic ebetween obfuscating an email address and providing a form, our response will be to improve our spam filtering and offer a plaintext mailto: link.
Plaintext links have high usability. The mail is organized within the user's mail program where it can be retrieved, collated by subject, and so forth. It can be copied and pasted. It's the abslute best thing for them :-)
> but at least they get the feedback of a bounced email.
First, that depends. They may hit an existing domain with a catch-all mailbox configured, or they may hit a legitimate mailbox at your provider, where the receiver may or may not think to reply that they got the wrong address.
Second, what percentage of users (especially in the segment that might misspell their own email address) will know what to do with a bounce mail?
reCaptcha Mailhide (http://mailhide.recaptcha.net/) is a good solution to this.
It hides your e-mail behind a CAPTCHA, but once it's solved it's an actual, well-formed address, that can be copied or clicked. Also, it's very clear if you've solved the CAPTCHA - it's no always clear if solved the "riddle" of an obfuscation correctly.