On Jun 28, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Tony Crockford wrote:
Why is the company logo and strap line the most important thing on
every page of a web site.
OR - why does most important *thing* on the page have to correspond
to h1?
Take a newspaper: arguably the most important *thing* on the front
: Andrew Maben
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
On Jun 28, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Tony Crockford wrote:
Why is the company logo and strap line the most important thing on every page
of a web site.
OR - why does most important *thing* on the page have to correspond to
h1?
Take a newspaper
Hi,
One thing usability studies HAVE found is that, when people are searching
for a particulsr item on the Web, they barely glance at the logo and tag
line.
What they do is scan the headers on the page. If they find an interesting
header, they'll speed-read the associated text to see if it's
On Behalf Of Frank Palinkas
I would say the most important _thing_ in a newspaper is the title
of lead story for that part of the day. The
I don't know why we're talking about Newspapers and/or Books here. This is
not print isn't?
There is not such thing that covers and front pages on the
IF you are doing user-centric design, then the question becomes What's the
most important part of the page to the USER? Once you look at it from
that viewpoint, then the company name is not the most important.
The company name has a visual importance for branding and keeping the
clients happy,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Joseph Taylor
Its a matter of convention.
And demanded by WCAG
When we write documents, we always put the big heading up top and go
down from there. Its simple habit.
Agreed.
Of course the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course the branding shouldn't be an h1.
Totally disagree.
Why?
Seriously.
Why is the company logo and strap line the most important thing on every
page of a web site.
isn't the page content more important than the branding?
isn't the headline for the page
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...with a paper doc the user always gets to see the front cover.
Unless they're blind.
Thing about markup is, we can structure it for many more purposes than
hard copy info can be. The most important blind visitor? Google...
(Which I think is where this thread
The company logo is the image image and the representative of the company
on the internet. Without the existience of the company the logo won't
exist and without the branding the website wouldn't have come anyway!
The content should just be readable and not to dominate the site. I think
On 28 Jun 2007, at 11:03 PM, Sunday John wrote:
The company logo is the image image and the representative of the
company on the internet. Without the existience of the company the
logo won't exist and without the branding the website wouldn't have
come anyway!
The content should just be
ya, quit agree with you!
It now depend on how you do SEO. Or maybe I should ask;
Does a content based site respond to search engine than a well meta-tag,
keyword e.t.c site?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:21:31 +0100, Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 28 Jun 2007, at 11:03 PM,
On 28 Jun 2007, at 11:41 PM, Sunday John wrote:
Does a content based site respond to search engine than a well
meta-tag, keyword e.t.c site?
It's pretty much accepted now that meta name=keywords don't carry
nearly as much weight as keywords (= search terms) in the actual
content of a page.
Google still uses the meta=description tag. Search for 'multipak', the
description given for the top link is taken from the meta tag.
Im not sure about other search engines.
I dont work on the SEO side of things, because usually well formed mark-up
is sufficient, unless your one of these people
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Crockford
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:48 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course the branding shouldn't be an h1.
Totally disagree
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...with a paper doc the user always gets to see the front cover.
Unless they're blind.
Well, they wont be seeing anything else then either, so semantics and
hierarchy of headings doesn't really matter in that case. Unless they
have it in
Sunday John schreef:
Does a content based site respond to search engine than a well
meta-tag, keyword e.t.c site?
If I'm correct search engines like Google give extra weight to keywords
in meta-tags, but only if they appear in the content of the site as
well. That way they know that these
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
How can you search for a company when you don't know it exists?
How do you find out what goods a certain company sells if don't know
what they are?
You search for the goods or services that you want - don't you?
Not always. If I want to know what campagnes
Sander Aarts wrote:
How can you search for a company when you don't know it exists?
How do you find out what goods a certain company sells if don't know
what they are?
Sorry, Sander, but that logic escapes me. Of course I don't know what
goods a certain company sells if I don't know they
On 29 Jun 2007, at 5:44 AM, Sander Aarts wrote:
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...with a paper doc the user always gets to see the front cover.
Unless they're blind.
Well, they wont be seeing anything else then either, so semantics and
hierarchy of headings doesn't
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
Exactly. But I still contend that my company name, being most likely
more unique than any name of goods or services that I provide, doesn't
require as much semantic weight in my markup and it will *still* be
easily found by those who already know I exist - but that the
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
Sander Aarts wrote:
How can you search for a company when you don't know it exists?
How do you find out what goods a certain company sells if don't know
what they are?
Sorry, Sander, but that logic escapes me. Of course I don't know what
goods a certain company
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
On 29 Jun 2007, at 5:44 AM, Sander Aarts wrote:
Nick Gleitzman schreef:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...with a paper doc the user always gets to see the front cover.
Unless they're blind.
Well, they wont be seeing anything else then either, so semantics and
On 29/06/07, Sander Aarts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, Sander, but that logic escapes me. Of course I don't know what
goods a certain company sells if I don't know they exist. But I know
what goods I'm looking for, so that's what I'll search on.
Sometime you're not looking for goods,
H1 should be your company name, or logo.
h1img src= alt=/h1
Some people like to use IR (Image Replacement) for logos, but a logo is your
brand, just as your
name is your brand, so i wouldnt use IR on a logo. Tagline should be H2.
Im not sure on what you mean by page content, i wouldnt wrap the
James Jeffery wrote:
H1 should be your company name, or logo.
Why?
shouldn't stuff that appears on every page, maybe in a div id=branding,
be of less importance than the subject of the page?
I'd be doing:
head
titleRugby World Cup 2007 Packages - Glory Days/title
/head
body
div
You can use more than one h1
Darren.
On 27/06/07, Web Man Walking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
I am about to start a new website and was given some advice by a SEO expert
who says the h1 on the page should be the most relevant thing to the page.
For example for a Sports Packages company I
I'd agree with the SEO expert, H1 should be saved for the most important
heading on a page - which is not generally the company name. So in your
example I'd say that Rugby World Cup 2007 Packages should be in a H1.
However that means it's probably not going to be the first heading element
on the
Chris Taylor wrote:
However that means it's probably not going to be the first heading element
on the page, which is frowned upon by some. Can anyone else expand on the
reasons for that?
I think we need to be careful how we visualise page structure.
I prefer the pragmatic headed paper
I didnt say you can only use a single H1 element and yes H1 is to be used
for the most
important headings on the page. When im developing for corp. customers i
tend to place
the companys identity (The Logo/Name) in the the H1 element because this is,
the most
important heading on the page and its
On 27 Jun 2007, at 6:43 PM, James Jeffery wrote:
H1 should be your company name, or logo.
h1img src= alt=/h1
Some people like to use IR (Image Replacement) for logos, but a logo
is your brand, just as your
name is your brand, so i wouldnt use IR on a logo. Tagline should be
H2.
Im not
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
Chris Taylor wrote:
However that means it's probably not going to be the first heading element
on the page, which is frowned upon by some. Can anyone else expand on the
reasons for that?
I think we need to be careful how we
to stick to that for future
projects.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tony Crockford
Sent: 27 June 2007 10:09
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
Chris Taylor wrote:
However that means it's probably
Web Man Walking wrote:
h1 id=companyGlory Days/h1
h2 id=taglinetickets, accommodation travel packages for major events
throughout the uk, europe and worldwide/h2
div id=content
h1Rugby World Cup 2007 Packages/h1
/div
Would I penalised for something like this?
My understanding would
Web Man:
It is one of lifes great mysteries (i.e. that is secret to Google), at what
point the value of H1 is diminished through (over) use. You are doing the
right thing by placing emphasis on the rugby world cup aspect.
The only time I expect to maybe see a clients name in an H1, is if is
James Jeffery wrote:
So basically what your trying to say is that branding is the least
important part
of the page, so place it in a p ?
no, I'm saying what the page is about is the most important, so put that
in the h1
take a multiple page site with branding on every page - after the
: Wednesday, 27 June, 2007 13:01 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
Web Man Walking wrote:
h1 id=companyGlory Days/h1
h2 id=taglinetickets, accommodation travel packages for major events
throughout the uk, europe and worldwide/h2
div id=content
h1Rugby World
Tony, while i can see your point, i dont agree. Nothing against your views
but its
the way you put a few things.
A search engine will not just search the by the H1, actually no-one actually
knows
how a search engine works, its a secret to the creator, but what we do know
is that
they make use of
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>James Jeffery wrote:A search engine will not just search the by the H1, actually no-one actually knowshow a search engine works, its a secret to the creator, but what we do know is that
they make use of all H* elements not just H1.I
tend to agree with James Jeffery on this one.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to agree with James Jeffery on this one. I just checked one of my
sites front page and found not a single h1, h2 or h3. Yet many of my key
words like 'group health insurance' or 'freedom blue ppo' show that site
on Google first page. Oh how I wish I knew how
Chris Taylor wrote:
can anyone explain why branding should be included in the page heading
hierarchy?
Its a matter of convention. When we write documents, we always put the
big heading up top and go down from there. Its simple habit. Of
course the branding shouldn't be an h1.
The
Joseph Taylor wrote:
this conversation says that I should probably
markup pages like:
div id=header
vcard content=for company name branding /
other header info /
/div
div id=content
h1My big page Heading/h1
content /
/div
Seems pretty straight forward. If the logo needs to be an
-Original Message-
From: Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jun 27, 2007 8:44 AM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page Structure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tend to agree with James Jeffery on this one. I just checked one of my
sites front page and found
In the past, I've set the company name or logo in an h2,
reserving the h1 for the actual page heading.
That'll only work if the page heading actually comes before the company
name, otherwise your heading hierarchy is broken.
--
Tyssen Design
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb:
On Wed, June 27, 2007 5:17 pm, Tony Crockford wrote:
Add in some skip to links and I think you're onto a winner, as long as
the content doesn't get too far down the source.
But, if you have a skip to content link as the first link on the page
(or thereabouts), search engine bots will follow
Curious, what if you use this ?
h3emRugby World Cup 2007 Packages/em/h3
and also putting all important keywords in the title
I was asked recently by someone to tell her why with certain keywords
search, her site shows up in first page in google and yahoo.
This person has no html and web
Nothing's wrong with putting your nav at the bottom of your source.
Actually I think its a rather good idea!
People using screen readers dont want to bombarded with the same set
of links each time they visit a new page. Thats why the whole skip to
content thing came about...so users with screen
Hi Ian,
I dont think its a massive issue to do that (put the navigation at the end of the source and position it at the top of the page visually). Theres probably some people that would say this is potentially better for screenreaders, in that they aren't confronted with a massive navigation
y see anything wrong with it.
I suppose it all comes down to user preference really.
---Original Message---
From: Peter Ottery
Date: 06/23/05 19:34:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
Hi Ian,
I dont think its a massive issue to do that (put the n
Ask your client ...
What is more important to you, getting a high ranking on a search engine
so potential customers (who may or may not become a real customer) are able
to find the site, or keeping the customers you already have by offering
site navigation that is easy to locate and use?
Darren Wood wrote:
Moving your nav to the bottom of your structure removes the need for a
skip to content...
But, conversely, can create the need for a skip to navigation link
before the content. Both solutions have pros and cons.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
indeed.
if i used a screen reader I'd rather see:
* Skip To Main Content
* Skip To Navigation
than
* Skip To Main Content
* Home
* Tradeshows
* Cutomer Service
* Corporate Information
* Contact Us
* Request Catalog
* Download Forms
* Order Tracking
The technique is called reverse source order, and yes in theory it does
improve your ranking in SERP's because content laden words appear at
the top of the page. It also means the first screenful in a text only
browser is content.
I've been using this technique for over two years now, and if
: 06/23/05 20:22:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
The technique is called reverse source order, and yes in theory it does
improve your ranking in SERP's because content laden words appear at
the top of the page. It also means the first
On 6/24/05, Dennis Lapcewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is more important to you, getting a high ranking on a search engine
so potential customers (who may or may not become a real customer) are able
to find the site, or keeping the customers you already have by offering
site navigation
Erica Jean wrote:
And neither link would nessicarily have to show up on your finished page
if you style them with display:none;. It would be there for the sole
purpose of users with screen readers.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind users with limited mobility who cannot use
a mouse and
Of Erica
JeanSent: Friday, 24 June 2005 10:48 AMTo:
wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Page structure -
navigation
Actually, the site I read said the link should read "Skip tothe
main content."
Whole thing.
Because otherwise (f
correct, but simply including the word 'main' is enough... 'skip to' is
optional. main content is pronounced correctly.
Studies (sorry, can't find the url, but think it came via Joe Clark)
have shown that a lot of screen reader users don't understand the
concept of 'skip to' and consequently
display:none makes the link invisible in some screen readers, the
off-left method is better solution for hiding content in the visual
design intended for screen reader/keyboard users.
Example:
// remove from visual design
.hide {
position:absolute;
left: -px;
}
// show to
On 6/23/05 6:32 PM Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
Studies (sorry, can't find the url, but think it came via Joe Clark)
have shown that a lot of screen reader users don't understand the
concept of 'skip to' and consequently ignore those links.
Is there something wrong with go
Oh well that's interesting.
You learn something new everyday ;) And that just goes to show you can't always trust what someone says on a website.;)
---Original Message---
From: Terrence Wood
Date: 06/23/05 21:35:27
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG
Rick Faaberg wrote:
Is there something wrong with go to whatever section?
One could argue that the go to is already implied by the fact that
it's a link. But I'd agree that, if I had to choose between skip and go,
I'd go with the latter because of its greater clarity.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
Rick Faaberg wrote:
Is there something wrong with go to whatever section?
It's been said that go to could imply to someone using a screen
reader that the link will take them to another page. You might prefer
to say Go to ... on this page.
Joe Clark had an entry in Axxlog a while back
62 matches
Mail list logo
