W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Accessible Ads - any suggested resources?

From: Peter Thiessen <peter.thiessen@primalfusion.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:13:10 +0000
To: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C535D0B6.1153%peter.thiessen@primalfusion.com>

Hello Cindy,

Thank you for your reply/experience with adds, and yes, vendors following
Web standards sounds like a very good idea/hope.

I'll keep this in mind.
-peter


> From: Cindy Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 04:40:52 -0000
> To: Peter Thiessen <peter.thiessen@primalfusion.com>
> Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Accessible Ads - any suggested resources?
> 
> On 11/3/08, Peter Thiessen <peter.thiessen@primalfusion.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  I'm working on putting together a plan/proposal for accessible Web ads with
>>  my employer - both banners and text lists. At first glance this seams
>>  straight forward - follow WCAG2 check points. Though, I suspect their may be
>>  more to the structure and "politeness" of an accessible add than I can think
>>  of on a whim.
>> 
>>  Would anyone know of any studies/papers/blogs about accessible adds? I did a
>>  preliminary search and came up with a few results but nothing really that
>>  interesting/useful.
> 
> 
> 
> No studies and totally from the end-user perspective here :: Back ages
> ago, the one thing I remember suggesting to the (unheeding) resource I
> was using is that they very, argh, in your face (sorry, at loss for
> words) provide multiple versions *if* they test and find their
> [output] under various oh, say, doctypes, didn't conform for whatever
> reason..
> 
> Yeah, like the closing tags that vary.. That's why doctypes came to
> Mind.. "Nice" on this end would be something like having a vendor who,
> in one quick click, accessibly offered versions whose closing tags
> conformed respectively to either (X)HTML or HTML..
> 
> It's just not that hard to do and doesn't mean an excess of code..
> Except in the surely existent rarest of occasions, conforming to the
> strictest levels means only probably two versions, *maybe* three
> because of downwards compatibility as things become less strict..?
> Yes, no..?
> 
> Being open to being approached when someone has a problem implementing
> one's output would be HUGE.. In the good ol' days, I think they used
> to call that..... *customer service*.. :grin:
> 
> Being receptive the way you all are, you *could* carry the associated
> webpages past the usually expected, extremely basic ad code [product]
> and proactively turn this into a great advocacy opportunity for
> encouraging more site owners to consider standards.. Would have to
> balance considering that with anticipation of how much excess, maybe
> even out of your realm, tech questions doing so might unexpectedly
> throw your way, too, I guess.. :grin:
> 
> Good luck with your project..
> 
> Cindy Sue :)
> 
> - :: -
> Celebrating Olmstead * June 22, 1999
> 
> http://wispothewill.wordpress.com/
> http://www.Delicious.com/SilkWhispers/
> Georgia Voices That Count, 2005
> Talking Rock, GA, USA
> 
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 15:14:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:29 GMT