RE: FW: Ad conformance

Hi Charles,

    There was a long discussion at the meeting (60 min) on this and the
group conclusion was that ads differed from other content on the page for a
number of reasons.

1 - you pay for other content and can choose it.  With Ads, they pay you and
you usually subscribe to a service.  You don't control the ads, nor do you
know what they will be like.   

2 - if you can't find a service that has an accessible form of something,
you can skip that feature on your site.   You can't skip the ads if that is
what is paying for your sites existence.  

3 - there are often accessible forms of most things.   There are only
limited Ad services.   If a lucrative one existed that had only accessible
ads...  then that would be great. But doesn't seem to be the case.  If none
exists, the sites only options are to post accessible ads or shut down site.
(or, of course, ignore any accessibility). 

4 - People coming to the site are coming for the content there.  Not the
ads.  If the ads are not accessible (but do not block access to the
information on the site), then the individuals did not miss anything that
they came for.   [ Note that this exception on ads did not apply to ads that
the site had control of.  For example, ads for that companies own products.]

5 - if the people are interested in the Ads, they could go to the ad site.
The ads would continue to have to meet the requirements of WCAG to be
considered accessible.  But he site could be accessible if the third party
ads were not.....   as long as the ads did not block access to the site
content. 


I think I captured most of the content of the working group discussion.  If
I missed a point - someone please let me know, or post a correction.




Gregg



 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:06 AM
To: Jens Meiert
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: Ad conformance


I disagree with the suggestion. If the ad (which is content on the page)
doesn't conform, then the page doesn't conform.

If we write a conformance system that allows for variable conformance within
a page (this part conforms to extended, that part conforms to core, or to
"doesn't break the rest") then it would be fine.

I can't imagine that ads provided by a third party are different from any
other application provided by a third party, and don't think it makes sense
to allow a claim of conformance for something that doesn't conform. (I've
argued the detail before). It causes all kinds of problems, including one of
credibility.

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Jens Meiert wrote:

>
>> The suggestion was that sites be allowed to claim conformance even if
>> advertisements did not conform as long as
>
>I agree, because one problem might be 'ambitious' Web sites (providing
>accessible and standard conformable content) being annulled by cooperation
>partners delivering inaccessible (advert) code -- will they force their
partners to
>comply with W3C or especially WAI standards (and are they at all able to
>enforce this)? Or won't they, because they either don't care of foreign
code or
>they don't even see the problem?
>
>> It was also felt that if the user agent could prevent or turn off any of
>> these behaviors
>
>Maybe the only realistic opportunity to get rid of (inaccessible) adverts.
>
>-- By the way, this topic is like a gray area because there are several
>characteristics only matching in the advertising sector... not only are
foreign
>providers responsible for an almost sensible Web site section (related to
>content 'above the fold'), but also there still is a discussion about
online
>advertising efficiency [1, 2]. And in general, is a 'common sense appeal'
really
>enough?
>
>
>Best regards,
> Jens.
>
>
>
>[1] Jakob Nielsen -- Will Plain-Text Ads Continue to Rule?
>     http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030428.html
>[2] Jakob Nielsen -- Making Web Advertisements Work
>     http://useit.com/alertbox/20030505.html
>
>
>--
>Jens Meiert
>Interface Architect
>
>http://meiert.com
>

Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134
136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78
22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 17:05:04 UTC