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 <w...@elysiansystems.com>
> > 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 9999px 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 *******************************************************************
