39 replies to this topic

[Randy]

If I'm understanding the concept your client is going after it goes something like this...

The client wants to use the FIR technique to provide css-delivered image links. And you're concerned that the SE's won't spider those links.

You're correct in that one. At this time the SE's don't read anything CSS for the most part. I'd hazard to guess, having not tested it specifically, that the SE's will not see those image links. So if you follow this approach you'll want to provide a text version of your link block. But you'd want to do that anyway for those visiting with a very old browser or those who have images disabled.

[anews]

Hi!

In my opinion SEs should penalize such stuff, but they probably don't - yet. Why? Because it is very likely the spammers will abuse this technique, if they don't already. So why bother with it? ALT="" is the way to go - the ones that can't handle graphics probably can't handle <h1> either. In the end it is the information that matters, not the tags around it. Besides, this is what alt was made for...

Enjoy!

Anze

[domokun]

hang on a sec ...
if the se's dont read css, then they will see a text link on the page and therefore they should be able to follow it?!

my understanding of fir, and it was some months ago that i used it, is that if the browser can understand css then an image is displayed (as a background) and the text is not. therefore, if se's can't read css the opposite would be true and they would see a text link.

dont agree with you there anze. if your argument as to why a new technique cant be used is that unscrupulous individuals will use it to spam, no new techniques should be invented at all ... in fact, all the current <h1/> tags and alt attributes should be abolished as people do currently use them to spam! plus, the fir is to ensure that the image is displayed as a background which therefore cant use the alt attribute.

[GeordieSEO]

I believe at least some of the search engines read CSS. I'm pretty sure Google does.

[anews]

dont agree with you there anze. if your argument as to why a new technique cant be used is that unscrupulous individuals will use it to spam, no new techniques should be invented at all ... in fact, all the current <h1/> tags and alt attributes should be abolished as people do currently use them to spam! plus, the fir is to ensure that the image is displayed as a background which therefore cant use the alt attribute.

It's not just that this technique can be abused - it is unnecessary. ALT is there for this kind of stuff. FIR technique solves a problem that never really existed and at the same time uses a way that will probably be banned sooner or later - because spammers will abuse it. Yes, you can abuse ALT tag - but at least it IS shown to (some) users, so it can backfire.

Besides, what if you have CSS capable browser and turn off images? The way I see it you won't get anything - not even an alt text. That is not very nice. And yes, I for one sometimes do browse with images turned off (in Opera it is pretty easy to use this feature), especially if the pages are (too) intensive in graphics.

For me it is an easy call - but then again, on my pages all "advanced" CSS is encoded in JavaScript, so I can check if browser really supports each and every feature I use (no, not by checking browser version, thank you very much ), so you could say I'm a bit conservative. But I learned that the pages I like are just that - conservative. While users admire complex pages they usually use the simple ones, the ones they can use. But that is a bit off topic...

If I were Google I would penalize pages that are not user-friendly because users won't use them anyway - and FIR would count for user-unfriendly way of presenting information. But I'm not, so it might be OK for you...

Anze

[domokun]

i see your point, but we'll have to agree to disagree ... either that or we can book a ring at trump towers!

[anews]

OK, I agree (to disagree)...

[qwerty]

It's not just that this technique can be abused - it is unnecessary. ALT is there for this kind of stuff.

This isn't just about alt attributes to images. We had a discussion months ago about what I think was the same method, and I understood its purpose to be allowing a designer to use highly stylized text without having to worry about whether the user had the font. The designer would replace the text with an image of the font for those users that have both CSS and images enabled, and the rest of the users (and spiders) would just see straight text.

I have a site that uses the BrushFlash font as kind of a motif. Because I don't use this method, and I don't expect most users to have that font installed, I only use it in graphics: navigation buttons and as a watermark on pictures. But if I were to use this method, I could create graphics in that font that could be used as header tags, and spiders and certain users (those without CSS and/or images) would still see my headers as headers.

So this is really much more about giving designers more options without losing spiderability than it is about alt text.

[Jill]

Designers should certainly feel free to use any design technique they want without fear that they might be "penalized" by the search engines for it.

There's no major search engine in the world that would want to discount pages purposely just because they used a technique that might be used by spammers. That would be biting their nose off to spite their face.

Jill

[keli]

But is this technique SPIDERABLE. That was one of my original questions.


Thanks,
Keli

[qwerty]

I believe so. According to the kyrogenix article, the code a spider will see is

<h1 id="newrepl">Hello world!</h1>

I don't see any problem with that.

[Kwix]

As for the illigitimacy of this technique, I invite everyone in this thread to view The CSS Zen Garden. Experiment around with the site, and then decide for yourself if image (re)placement is a useful technique or not.

[anews]

This isn't just about alt attributes to images. We had a discussion months ago about what I think was the same method, and I understood its purpose to be allowing a designer to use highly stylized text without having to worry about whether the user had the font. The designer would replace the text with an image of the font for those users that have both CSS and images enabled, and the rest of the users (and spiders) would just see straight text.
...
So this is really much more about giving designers more options without losing spiderability than it is about alt text.

You still lose users that have images disabled. They don't see anything.

I often use fonts not available on users' computers. I just make an image and put an alt tag. 99% of users see it like it is and the other 1% see the alt text. No losers in this case.

Are FIR pages penalized? Well, spiders are just programs. They are written by humans. They have bugs (or "features" - depends on the software vendor ). This technology could be penalized, and I would even say that it should be - people should stick to standards where they exist unless they are not sufficient. But hey, if you feel you need the technology - go for it. At least for the time being you shouldn't have any problems using it.

Enjoy!

Anze

[qwerty]

You still lose users that have images disabled. They don't see anything.

I think you're right. I read what you wrote and went back to the article to check on it. Since the CSS sets the text's visibility to hidden, the text will only show for users without CSS enabled. If CSS is enabled but images aren't (or they just fail to load) the text will remain hidden and the user will only see the image placeholder and alt attribute.

I guess I should be glad I've never used this.

[Scottie]

As for the illigitimacy of this technique, I invite everyone in this thread to view The CSS Zen Garden.  Experiment around with the site, and then decide for yourself if image (re)placement is a useful technique or not.

Welcome to the forum Kwix!

I love that site... very inspirational.

I think the issure here (and I didn't catch it at first) isn't the technique of calling images via CSS (which is perfectly OK and an efficient way to build a page, IMO) but the specific technique of using CSS to call images that hide text.

Again, just my opinion, but you take your chances doing that. It's only a matter of time before SE's start checking stylesheets for attributes marked as "hidden". If you are only worried about today (not a long term site) I think it's fine, as Anze says. I wouldn't use this technique on a site I wanted to build for the long term because when they do catch things like that, you may find yourself on the outs.

I do think this is an interesting topic... people seem to want to find away around showing a user text. There are so many creative and effective ways to work text into a page, but people still want a graphic only page without sacrificing rankings... just put the text on the page!