On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 07:02 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:

> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > Michael A. Peters wrote:
> >> If <aside> is not proper to use for this purpose, what would be?
> >>
> >> <sidebar> suggests a particular type of layout.
> >> <section> suggests content.
> >> <nav> is appropriate for some items in a side bar, but not all, and is 
> >> often a child of how <aside> is being used.
> >> <div> give no semantics.
> >>
> >> I would like to see a <toc> tag for nav that serves as a table of 
> >> contents of sorts (what I often have at the top of a side bar) but I 
> >> suspect <nav> is considered sufficient.
> >>
> >> Maybe <sidebar> would be best, and the reference to column type layout 
> >> can just be understood that isn't necessarily on the side?
> >>
> >> Reading up on it, I saw some suggest <figure> for what some of you 
> >> want <aside> used for, but a <figure> is often important content and 
> >> has its own meaning so that's not exactly appropriate.
> > 
> > I would lean towards <div> if there is no appropriate semantic tag to 
> > markup the information. But in the case of ads, there really should be a 
> > n <ad> tag :)
> I don't know.
> I understand making it cake for ad blockers is attractive, but I run a 
> web site that benefits the local community and is paid for out of my 
> pocket and while some donations have come in, nowhere near what it 
> costs. There are a few select ads (no flash or animated) and even they 
> don't make up the difference, but I wouldn't use something like <ad> 
> because I personally have taken a huge financial cut this year (20% 
> income reduction) yet I'm kind enough to out of pocket provide this 
> service, including things like a SSL certificate so that users who want 
> to log on can do so without fear of password sniffing etc. and I will 
> never charge for use of my site, so while I don't specifically look for 
> people running ad blockers, when they do, it kind of feels like they are 
> giving me the finger.
> I do not mind script/flash blockers (and will never use flash ads 
> because of how many behave poorly and do things like expand to cover 
> content or flash at high rates giving headaches and possibly even 
> causing seizures) but I know people use ad blockers, so I host the ad 
> images myself which seems to neuter them, but I would never use 
> something like <ad> until someone paid me to, and it would have to cover 
> costs (which are not covered even right now even with ads).
> I've been accused (once) of trying to profit from the site.
> I'd post how I replied to the jerk, but I assume some children read this 
> list.

I think ad's have and always will be part of the web. What gets up most
peoples noses, and is something you said you don't do, is flashy ads
that try to take over the screen, or ads that pretend to be some sort of
warning on your computer. I'm wise enough not to be taken by the latter
ones, but the ones that try to take over my screen (always in Flash too)
are annoying for 2 reasons: 1) older versions of the Flash player on
Linux couldn't handle transparent windowed mode in Flash, so I was left
with a big white block over the content, and 2) I just don't like ad's
that change size and move over the whole page forcing you to click on
them to get at the content that you wanted underneath.

Unobtrusive ads are fine. I can look at them or ignore them if I wish,
which is likely to get a better response than shoving them in my face.
It's for this very reason that I don't read most of the free London
newspapers, because I can't stand the people who try to shove them at me
every time I try to get a train home from work.


Reply via email to