RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
Try Thierry Koblentz's technique that fixes a lot of these issues. http://tjkdesign.com/articles/tip.asp Ted -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Hargreaves, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:07 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO though. With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if images were on. In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy string containing keywords. >Michael Hargreaves -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au/ On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it > through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either > randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). > Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will > likely result in an immediate ban. > > regards, > > David Dixon > > e: da...@temperedvision.com > w: www.temperedvision.com > > On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO > mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few > elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the > left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some > search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is > there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and > visually impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *
RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO though. With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if images were on. In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy string containing keywords. >Michael Hargreaves -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au/ On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it > through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either > randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). > Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will > likely result in an immediate ban. > > regards, > > David Dixon > > e: da...@temperedvision.com > w: www.temperedvision.com > > On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO > mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few > elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the > left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some > search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is > there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and > visually impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO though. With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if images were on. In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy string containing keywords. >Michael Hargreaves -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au/ On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it > through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either > randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). > Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will > likely result in an immediate ban. > > regards, > > David Dixon > > e: da...@temperedvision.com > w: www.temperedvision.com > > On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO > mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few > elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the > left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some > search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is > there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and > visually impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
On Wed, 27 May 2009 12:04:48 pm Chris Dimmock wrote: > "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To > date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try > hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." > MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 > > That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, > Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as > is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. > > My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And > while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could > get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there > is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. > > But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Exactly, there are some highly beneficial uses for hiding content, either off screen, with visbility hidden or with display none. A form spam honeypot field is one that comes to mind. I'm sure Google just don't focus on this alone and they have a number of other methods for detecting tricks to detect keyword spam. SEO is just another word for writing good balanced, content, having decent links in, links out and proper URL redirection methods. Cheers James > > Chris > http://www.cogentis.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
Just as a side note, instead of doing a -px, try using -999em... In most cases, you can probably even get away with -99em. This has two advantages: 1) Its a few less characters in your CSS 2) If the user increases their font size, there is a chance that the thing you are hiding might start to re-appear from the negative indent. Highly unlikely, because it would have to be bigger than px... However, if you are using em values, increasing the font size should actually move the text further out to the left. In terms of how this technique might affect SEO or accessibility, it has a chance of affecting both. I would take a big guess and say that search engine spiders may look at the amount of content you are moving offscreen - if it considers there to be a lot, it may start to get suspicious. In terms of accessibility, more often than not, image replacement for any text is generally a bad idea IMHO - but that said, I think you are safe to use this technique with a high likelihood that a screen reader will 'read out' the hidden content. Karl On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Hargreaves, Michael wrote: > > If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind > the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO > though. > With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if > images were on. > > In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent > method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like > headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. > > I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a > legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's > there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy > string containing keywords. > > > >>Michael Hargreaves > > > -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock > Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility > > > "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date > we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to > avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - > 02:09 > > That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, > Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is > their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. > > My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And > while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get > you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a > accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. > > But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. > > Chris > http://www.cogentis.com.au/ > > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon > wrote: > >> The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it >> through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either >> randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). >> Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will >> likely result in an immediate ban. >> >> regards, >> >> David Dixon >> >> e: da...@temperedvision.com >> w: www.temperedvision.com >> >> On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: >> >> Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO >> mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few >> elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the > >> left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some >> search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is >> there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and >> visually impaired folks happy? >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Regards, >> Spell >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> *** >> >> >> >> >> *** >
RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO though. With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if images were on. In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy string containing keywords. >Michael Hargreaves -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au/ On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it > through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either > randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). > Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will > likely result in an immediate ban. > > regards, > > David Dixon > > e: da...@temperedvision.com > w: www.temperedvision.com > > On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO > mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few > elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the > left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some > search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is > there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and > visually impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
"We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - 02:09 That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies. My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'.. Chris http://www.cogentis.com.au/ On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon wrote: > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it through > an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either randomly, or > when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). Its that manual > detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will likely result in an > immediate ban. > > regards, > > David Dixon > > e: da...@temperedvision.com > w: www.temperedvision.com > > On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO mavens > out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I > have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for > accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search > engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is there a > middle ground that can be met to make search engines and visually > impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
> I tend to use a class name like class="accessabilityonly" for these > fields, in the hopes of giving a reviewer at least a clue as to what I I'm the same, I use class="wai" - James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
> -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of David Dixon > Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 10:26 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility > > > The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it > through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either > randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). Its > that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will > likely result in an immediate ban. > I agree that only manual inspection will be able to find your hidden text. However, if it is obvious that the reason for you hiding the text is accessibility, rather than spamming search engines with your keywords, then they are very unlikely to ban your site. Google & Co are not out to ban any sites unless they have got a damn good reason to do so (otherwise they would be missing crucial results in their searches). If somebody uses hidden text to spam, that's one thing. But other than that... why would they ban you? It's not fraud if the hidden text provides similar information to what the rest of your website does, as long as it is in a reasonable format. I like Lea's approach: > -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Lea de Groot > [...] > I tend to use a class name like class="accessabilityonly" for these > fields, in the hopes of giving a reviewer at least a clue as to what I > am doing, but it isn't a well defined field. > [...] I would say: be reasonable with the information you put into the hidden fields so that somebody manually inspecting your site will let you get away with it. __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4107 (20090527) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
It will only be an issue if what you present to a user is different to what you present to a search engine. If what you're doing is using a text replacement technique using an image etc, then there are no problems with that. But if you are adding invisible headings or links etc (ie anything that "should" be allow for user interaction, but doesnt because its been move out of sight to enhance seo etc) then this will be a problem as it is, what is commonly referred to as, a "black hat technique". The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will likely result in an immediate ban. regards, David Dixon e: da...@temperedvision.com w: www.temperedvision.com On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and visually impaired folks happy? Thanks in advance! Regards, Spell *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
I think that if these texts are anchors for internal navigation or links with relative URLs for pages on the site shouldn´t have no problems. 2009/5/26 Lea de Groot > > On 27/05/2009, at 2:26 AM, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > > It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I >> have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for >> accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search >> engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is there a >> middle ground that can be met to make search engines and visually >> impaired folks happy? >> > > Yes, it is an issue, and at times people will jump on it. > It really comes down to how much you've done, and what it looks like. > Its the sort of thing that will be picked up in a manual review, and they > aren't that common. > I tend to use a class name like class="accessabilityonly" for these fields, > in the hopes of giving a reviewer at least a clue as to what I am doing, but > it isn't a well defined field. > The litmus test is: if you took them out., would you be more worried about > the search engines not seeing your text, or the accessability > implications... > > hope it helps :) > > Lea > -- > Lea de Groot > Elysian Systems > Brisbane, .au > > > > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > -- Make it simple for the people -- http://www.artideias.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
On 27/05/2009, at 2:26 AM, Spellacy, Michael wrote: It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and visually impaired folks happy? Yes, it is an issue, and at times people will jump on it. It really comes down to how much you've done, and what it looks like. Its the sort of thing that will be picked up in a manual review, and they aren't that common. I tend to use a class name like class="accessabilityonly" for these fields, in the hopes of giving a reviewer at least a clue as to what I am doing, but it isn't a well defined field. The litmus test is: if you took them out., would you be more worried about the search engines not seeing your text, or the accessability implications... hope it helps :) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, .au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility
I wouldn't worry about it. Search engines are smart enough to see the difference between trying to influence your ranking by spamming keyword etc. Or just have an item or 2 being placed of screen for accessibility reasons. Tijmen On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Spellacy, Michael wrote: > Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO mavens > out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few elements I > have placed on a site that have text indented px to the left for > accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some search > engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is there a > middle ground that can be met to make search engines and visually > impaired folks happy? > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Spell > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
