Flash proposes for blind people a function which called
"Accessibility". With this function you can add a title to this
flash.

Googlebot can read easily this function and it would be very
interesting to add more information about a web page in this function.
That can improve indexing and ranking.

But, I'm not sure if this idea will violate or not google guidelines.
What do you think?

In advance thanks,

Best regards,

G.

On 10 juil, 13:45, Susan Moskwa wrote:

Would it be possible to be more precise about a.k.a. Deconcept method,
please ?

In advance thanks a lot for your help.

G.

On Jul 10, 8:07 pm, webado wrote:

On Jul 11, 9:19 am, goldorak1208 wrote:

On Jul 11, 9:19 am, goldorak1208 wrote:

It doesn't seem to cover sites that are fully Flash that one might
want to make more accessible by providing an HTML version as an option
or vice versa, a Flash version as an option for what would normally be
a fully HTML site.

There is another part in the Help pages that mentions the idea of
providing HTML versions of the Flash pages but doesn't really go into
as much detail and might be useful as to how one might go about doing
it because it seems there are some of what might be considered
"dangerous" ways to go about it.

If my understanding of Google's intent is correct, it might be as
simple as suggesting that webmasters can make a full Flash and full
HTML version of their sites as long as visitors have the option of
which to view.  But again, the Help pages aren't too clear on how
Flash versions and HTML versions can co-exist.

Craig

Agreed. And to be frank, we struggled with this issue while the blog
post on Flash was being drafted, because we don't really have an
elegant answer right now. As things stand, the webmaster of an all-
Flash site has various options, but few (if any) of them are 100%
problem-free...

If you simply create a site all in Flash, you run the risk of having
the text be inaccessible to the Googlebot (not to mention many of your
users), depending on how the text is incorporated into the Flash. If
you create a side-by-side HTML version of each of the Flash pages, you
run the risk of our crawler seeing that as duplicate content
(depending on how much of the Flash we were able to crawl). Plus,
you're splitting the strength of your backlinks to that page, because
any backlinks to the HTML version of the page won't be counted towards
the Flash version and vice versa (unless you redirect one to the
other, but that defeats the whole purpose of having two distinct pages
in the first place).

You could robot out the Flash pages so that bots only see the
(crawlable) HTML version... this eliminates potential duplicate
content issues, but still loses the value of all the backlinks to the
Flash version of the page.

There's also the problem that, if you create a static HTML version of
each Flash page (or if you use a content-substitution technique like
SWFObject), there's nothing to guarantee that the content on those 2
pages is exactly the same. Maybe you insert a typo here; accidentally
leave out a paragraph there; or decide that such-and-such sentence
would sound a lot better if it were reworded, but you don't have time
to change the Flash right now, so you "improve" it in the HTML version
only... As soon as you have two different versions of what is
(conceptually) the same page, not only have you doubled the workload
required to maintain that website, but it increases the opportunity
for the content of those two page versions to diverge. And the more
the content diverges between what you're showing your visual users vs.
what the crawlers see, the more likely that is to raise a red flag
(you may recall similar comments on the issue of image replacement:
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_...).

So, you can see why we often recommend that people use Flash
sparingly. We're not holding out on you; we just don't have the
perfect answer to "How can I design my site 100% in Flash *and* be
perfectly optimized for crawlability and non-visual users?" Flash is
certainly a powerful tool and makes possible some awesome visual
effects. But each webmaster needs to ask him/herself if Flash is right
for their site. Maybe the benefits in your particular situation
outweigh the complications; maybe they don't. We try to help by making
webmasters aware of the ramifications of using Flash, so that you're
better equipped to make the decision about whether it's right for your
site.

What about meta noindex, following the flash versions of the page -
with a link to the non-flash version from each page - imperfect I know
but (as I understand) would still allow the pages to pass PR to the
non-flash version?

M

On Jul 13, 8:17 am, Susan Moskwa wrote: