Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
"Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, including .... Using CSS to hide text"
Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be able to view that content either."
As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers capabilities.
I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I think everyone will agree is not an option).
Have a look at the main navigation on my site www.travellerspoint.com for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in the image, just hidden using CSS.
I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on accessibility.
It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more without actually saying much of anything concrete.
Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, not being required.
> Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > able to view that content either."
> As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > capabilities.
> I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
So do you tend to use plain text for nav purposes in your 'basic pages' or use images? If you use images, do you have a fall back text option for fallback/mobile purposes etc?
Man, I'd really hate to have to replace good looking images with arial/ verdana font.... it just seems like going back in time 5 years!
> Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > accessibility.
> It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > not being required.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
When it comes to things artistic and graphics, I can't draw a straight line with a straight edge so guess what I use. :-()
Seriously though, not that I wasn't actually serious, I think the closest I would get to using images for navigation is by using background images with text on top. I'm also not a big fan of wild fonts but that is just a personal preference and also partly because I am not good at typesetting so I never got into custom fonts all that much.
I suppose what I would do were I to want to do full images for navigation would be scripted image replacement giving the user the option to turn the function off. You can see what I'm talking about at http://cass-hacks.com
The main content menu starts out as a tree structured list which on load is converted to the fly-out style using Javascript, only to test for the presence of Javascript because IE-6 needs it for the fly-out functionality. Firefox and all the others, including IE-7 can do the fly-out on CSS alone. But, using the user preference icons in the upper right corner, one can switch back and forth from list style to fly-out style. It is fugly and it is a lot of screwing around code/ process wise but it does work and at least it gives one the option of fly-out, which I hate, and list style, which I like.
So to make a long story just a bit longer, what I would do would be to serve a "plain" page and then modify it on the client side based on the clients' abilities and user preferences.
> So do you tend to use plain text for nav purposes in your 'basic > pages' or use images? If you use images, do you have a fall back text > option for fallback/mobile purposes etc?
> Man, I'd really hate to have to replace good looking images with arial/ > verdana font.... it just seems like going back in time 5 years!
> On Jun 7, 4:04 pm, cass-hacks wrote:
> > Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> > The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > > accessibility.
> > It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> > Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > > not being required.
> > > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > > able to view that content either."
> > > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > > capabilities.
> > > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
> Directly from the ambiguous department of ambiguity. :-()
> The guidelines should stick to guidelines for Google and leave > accessibility out of it or, give references to authoritative sites on > accessibility.
> It seems all that was accomplished was confusing the issue even more > without actually saying much of anything concrete.
> Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I always have been > doing, e.g. provide a "basic" page, including any images that are > relevant, that anything can process while building enhancements on top > that enabled user agents can take advantage of while at the same time, > not being required.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....- Hide quoted text -
You should stick with what you have. When you've the same text on an image, piece of flash or whatever, and in CSS hidden text which appears when the fancy stuff cannot be rendered, that's just a more elegant ALT text. The new detail page on cloaking is confusing and should be changed.
> Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > able to view that content either."
> As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > capabilities.
> I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....
So, do I understand this correctly? If you have an image as navigation you can legitimately replace the image with text links based on the user agent and not be penalized for cloaking? Or you could be penalized so don't do it until they change the algo? I thought about doing this but didn't want to run the risk because it would be presenting different content to googlebot.
> You should stick with what you have. When you've the same text on an > image, piece of flash or whatever, and in CSS hidden text which > appears when the fancy stuff cannot be rendered, that's just a more > elegant ALT text. The new detail page on cloaking is confusing and > should be changed.
> > Now, back to 2007 and these particular bits of the information:
> > "Text (such as excessive keywords) can be hidden in several ways, > > including .... Using CSS to hide text"
> > Agreed, and if done for the wrong reasons, not good.
> > Then this: "If you're using text to try to describe something search > > engines can't access - for example, Javascript, images, or Flash files > > - remember that many human visitors using screen readers, mobile > > browsers, browsers without plug-ins, and slow connections will not be > > able to view that content either."
> > As most web developers/designers will know, the choice of fonts and > > how they look are still unfortunately severely limited when it comes > > to the web. A lot of design aware developers and web designers that > > choose to code their websites a la 2007 (ie. split content from style > > and use CSS to get the design) thus choose to make their navigation > > consist of a series of images since, let's face it, this generally > > looks a lot better and also looks the same over most browsers .... and > > as designers/developers, we are of course coding for users (like > > google always recommends!). Common practice when doing this is to > > provide a means for people on outdated browsers or browsers aimed at > > viewers with visual disabilities, to still be able to see the > > navigation, although not at it's top design wise. This is done with > > hidden text which automatically shows depending on the browsers > > capabilities.
> > I guess you know the question. Does this update to the guidelines mean > > this is out or definitely in? On the one hand you're not supposed to > > hide text, yet on the other hand they specifically mention keeping > > your site readable for human visitors who have browsers that might not > > otherwise be able to see the images. The only way to do this, if you > > want to have a nicely designed image of text as your navigation, is to > > hide text (well, or have both showing underneath each other which I > > think everyone will agree is not an option).
> > Have a look at the main navigation on my sitewww.travellerspoint.com > > for an example. Disable css altogether and you'll get the text version > > just like it's meant to be. But the images look better for those users > > browsing with 99% of the browsers. Just to be clear, I'm not talking > > about keyword stuffing or anything, it's exactly the same text as in > > the image, just hidden using CSS.
> > I guess to be safe, the only choice is to remove the images and go > > back to text, but I hate it when having to go backwards in time/design > > just because something isn't clear in google's guidelines....- Hide quoted text -
