[minaguib]

I work in ad tech, and indeed some areas and experiences are less-than-optimal, especially in RTB.

Unless the site owner is selling highly-custom take-overs, skins or other non-standard formats, ad interference with site content and layout is almost entirely eliminated via the use of iframes.

[cmdrfred]

Even better throw the sandbox[0] tag on it and then, allow scripts only if there is no other option.

[0]http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/security/sandboxed-if...

[sleepychu]

I consider iframes to be basically the most egregious ad insert.

[cmdrfred]

You are being downvoted because you can make iframes seamless[0]. Unless you are looking at the source you won't even know it's an iframe.

https://jsfiddle.net/yms8ftyw/1/

[true_religion]

seamless="seamless" doesn't do anything in any browser.

[cmdrfred]

Thanks, I saw it in a Stackoverflow answer and while it did nothing in Chrome or Firefox I thought It might of been there for IE or something.

[rat87]

According to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4804604/html5-iframe-seam... the attribute is still in draft and isn't implemented in any browsers yet.

[ricardobeat]

Why? It is safer, doesn't block loading of main page assets and causes way less breakage when things go wrong.

[sleepychu]

You're forcing me to make a request to the ad suppliers server. I understand this isn't unique to iframes but I'd much prefer that any ad content is proxied by the server I'm actually looking at. I go on a lot in comments about the invasion of privacy that ads represent and I think iframes go a long way to perpetuating that poor privacy 'deal' so reject them with aggression. I often find I'm forced to use the mouse to grant them any focus (which is frustrating for me because I don't like using mouse pointers but I imagine it causes all sorts of havoc with accessibility).