suzmccarth wrote:

>
> > I have suggested, only partly in jest, that some very-animated ads
> run the
> > risk of triggering epileptic seizures, surely no joking matter.
>
> Not a joking matter.

Wasn't there a Japanese animation TV program that caused simultaneous
seizures all over the country?

> > use a click-and-drag filled rectangle (as in a computer drawing
> program)
> > to cover a particularly-annoying ad.
>
> Very useful idea. It could be installed on the individual
> workstation and float over the browser, in the same way that the
> screenreader toolbar does. No kidding - it could be a box that could
> be resized and reshaped as well, or split into multiple boxes on a
> right click. Or it could be on another website and then you navigate
> to the website you want and with both open at once you could
> manipulate your own animated icon shield over top of the website
> whose content you wish to read in undistracted peace. It's a
> brilliant idea actually.

But it is not in Opera's interest.

The idea of who owns the real estate on the screen - and who has the
right to change it - is a very undecided idea legally. Look at the
software from Claria (formerly Gator) and the lawsuits involved therein
to see the subtleties.

>
> It's possible that such things as aniamted ads are already counter
> to the w3 accessibility standards.

Unlikely w3 has much sway over what form advertising should or will take...

> They do seem to be on the
> decrease.

Because they are not effective as advertisements?

Best,

Barry