Re: FW: Ad conformance

Hi Gregg,

thanks for the explanation. In summary I am still opposed to the 
exception for the reasons I have given in the past. A little more 
detail below for anyone unfamiliar with the rough outline of the 
argument.

I think that the exception is contrary to the goal of the guidelines, 
and will weaken rather than strengthen accessibility, by providing a 
means for claiming that some content is an advertisement and can 
therefore claim conformance despite being manifestly not in conformance 
with the guidelines as they would apply.

I also believe that such an exemption is inappropriate in the 
guidelines - if it makes sense at all, it would make sense in material 
directed at policy makers, providing further guidance on issues that 
might arise in implementing the guidelines in a policy framework.

As I understand it, these guidelines are not a law to be imposed on 
everyone, but a technical specification which describes what makes 
something accessible. If there are good policy reasons for granting 
exemption (just as if there are good policy reasons for requiring 
conformance in the first place) it is the job of policy makers to 
decide that, rather than for the working group to precipitate that 
decision. For some legal systems such an exemption made by the working 
group would be incompatible with the law, which would potentially 
result in a law requiring that certain parts of the guidelines be 
ignored in favour of better accessibility, which is embarassing as well 
as putting the problem in the wrong place.

The arguments given below apply to other important services, from 
search engine results to a third-party travel application provided for 
a global intranet (these are two real applications I am dealing with in 
a multinational company that I hope will become a great example).

The exception might be the argument that people don't go to a site for 
advertising, but I don't see the point as relevant. People who find the 
ad inaccessible are unlikely to go to the site that made it, and there 
is a strong argument that the relevant destination is in any event 
advertising and should get the exemption. Likewise, a global 
organisation may not have any more control over their own advertising 
material than they do over others', since it is likely to come from an 
external provider (i.e. not the unit responsible for the website, which 
may be a separate company in another country).

cheers

Chaals

On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 07:03 Australia/Sydney, Gregg Vanderheiden 
wrote:

> 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.
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org

Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 17:39:43 UTC