Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Dangers Of Css..
Posted 11 June 2005 - 08:09 PM
If the image were used and there were no <h1>, the screen reader would not be able to get the structural information from the combination of the image and the text that follows it.
Obviously, all of this would also be accomplished by not using the image at all, and just having the heading appear on the page above the text it's introducing, but that doesn't mean that FIR and such methods are anti-accessibility. It's better than using an image instead of a heading, and (as long as a search engine doesn't choose to view it as a use of hidden text) no worse than just using a heading instead of an image.
<added to clarify>The image in question, by the way, is a visual representation of the words in the header, but by using an image the designer can use a font that may not be on the user's computer.
Posted 11 June 2005 - 09:56 PM
What Qwerty said:
Posted 11 June 2005 - 11:42 PM
The best way to handle the image as a heading tag (for accesability reasons) would be to use the image with alt="Heading - word in the image" or Subheading="word in image"
Of course like was said, if one is truly interested in accessability they will use the h1 tag. On a government site it would pretty much be the only way they could do it...
I guess what I am saying is that having both the image and H1, is not 508 compliant. It would be providing alternative content, which should only take place when there is no way of presenting the original content in a compliant way. In this instance not the case. If you use an Image as a heading, use the alt description.
Sorry, I'm not disagreeing, just claification. I do see what you are saying, and understand why you said that it wouldn't be spam.
Thanks Jill and qwerty
Edited by ChipJohns, 11 June 2005 - 11:50 PM.
Posted 12 June 2005 - 09:26 AM
Not really, because the info in alt attributes are not always indexed by search engines as part of the text on the page.
So any way that you can make sure that text you have on the page in images is seen as actual text on the page by search engines, is helpful to them.
(I am admittedly not up on the accessibility implications, and personally care more about the search engine ones! )
Posted 12 June 2005 - 10:17 AM
Posted 12 June 2005 - 01:51 PM
The Disability Standards are a world unto their own. I used to be highly involved in that stuff, but I know well enough to know that I'm behind the times now.
Try as I might to adhere to at least the basic 508 standards I know that I still fail, even though my attempts probably out-perform 99% of those sites that are [i]required[i] to meet all of the 508 precepts. It's laziness on my part I'm sure, because I'm more concern with browser compatibility and best serving the most people. And I should do better, which I'll freely admit.
Given the choice of supporting XYZ browser or making sure Bobby loves me, I'm going to choose the browser compliance every time. If for no other reason than that it means money in my pocket.
Which begs the question...
If the majority of the Gov't/Uni/etc sites that are under a Mandate from years ago to be 508 compliant can't bother themselves to actually meet those guidelines; and if someone who used to Teach people how to reach 508 compliance doesn't bother to always dot every "i" and cross every "t" with his own sites; Will it ever become anything close to the norm?
Posted 12 June 2005 - 02:55 PM
It certainly does so in all the text readers I use. Why not just use that? Simple and obvious. Did I miss something?
Posted 13 June 2005 - 06:06 AM
but note that someone has already mentioned the potential SEO spam problems in the comments!
Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:58 AM
Is that really a description of the image, or is it more a brief stylistic analysis of the image combined with a plug for the hotel? If I were analyzing the page, I'd say that someone was looking for ways to sneak the word "traditional" in there.
Posted 13 June 2005 - 10:07 AM
Qwerty: I have done some poking and you are right, well, we are right. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. At this time, what I have found is that the Acessability community is pretty much split on Image Replacement Techniques such as FIR, MIR, etc. I happpen to be on the side that disagrees with this technique. And, I understand that you are on the side that agrees with it. And, both are okay to me. Since the concensus is split, I can't say that it isn't compliant, only that I wouldn't do it. So I will recant the "non-compliant thing."
There are good and bad points to the issue...
Oh, and I know that you agree with me that the best way to handle this is to use an H1 tag from the beginning!
-- It still makes for a great debate
I don't know about you, but during debates like this when my underlying beliefs about why we do things are challenged, If I do my best to keep an open mind I usually end up with stronger convictions, or expanded knowledge that helps me do a better job...A win/win situation.. Thanks.
A point on the longdesc. This really wouldn't be the best thing to do in a case like this. Notice that it stars with LONGdesc(ription)
This originally developed for a graphic that displays a lot of information, like a statistical graph for instance. To use if for a heading image.; would be overkill, and after a user went to the first longdesc page and seen that it wasn't nothing more than 5 words, would probably not visit another.
And as was mentioned, it isn't always relilable. Even though we would use longdesc, we usually would still place a link to the page under the graphic. And, this brings up another point why we would do this. We tend to think of screen readers and screen magnifiers. Many users still increase font size to see content. When an image is used, it can't be increased. So if there is an image that needs to represent data, providing a link to a page that explains it, may be the only way to present the information to such a user.
** Randy, it has been a little while for me too, and I felt the same way that you do. After poking around in the forums for a while, I see that its not true. Compliance hasn't changed that much. More tools out there, but the best way to check for page compliance is by hand. It is still about the guidelines, bottom line. And, I agree with you about how lax everything has seemed to become. I worked on the initial project for a Major Federal Government Site. I can't believe some of the things they are doing now..
Posted 13 June 2005 - 10:49 AM
Sort of. I'm on the side that sees why people do it, but I've never done it myself, and I'm not sure if I ever will. So we can agree to disagree, but we may not disagree quite as much as you think
Posted 13 June 2005 - 12:03 PM
I would actually keep the items on the page but as hidden then toggle on/off as needed via CSS instead of having to shift pixels to place it.
Anytime something is hidden from the default view using any method causes problems with screen readers / text only browsers.
I bet that within two years there will be CSS SE parsers running around checking web sites CSS for hidden / off screen abuse once the number of CSS sites online hit the 50% mark.
IE7 (Beta due out this summer) is supposed to support more CSS2 standards - selective ones - and that will help spur on conversion to CSS in general. That is what will get the SE to start writing CSS check bots.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users