Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Fahrner Image Replacement Technique
Posted 17 January 2004 - 06:52 PM
Posted 18 January 2004 - 12:02 PM
[Feel free to add your URL to your signature by using the forum user controls.]
Edited by Jill, 18 January 2004 - 12:07 PM.
Posted 04 February 2004 - 04:33 AM
The main reason for FIR (and the various versions of it) are to provide designers the ability to create fancy graphical headings with their chosen font, while also dishing up a plain text version. This is for style and accessibility together. Its not about alt or title attributes.
The general jist is that people with CSS and images on will see the nice graphical heading. Those without CSS on, or without CSS enabled browsers, will see the plain text heading. Also into the mix, people using screen readers (people with visual impairments) are meant to be able to get the text read out to them in a better fashion.
Its quite flawed though, in that, as someone said, have CSS on, but images off, and you're screwed. And many screen readers end up missing the 'hidden' text because of the way its hidden anyway.
In terms of the SEO implications. This was one of my biggest bugbears about it and have commented on it elsewhere. While in theory the idea is fine, and yes should even help with SE's (especially if you're enclosing you're heading text in a heading tag), it looks far too open to spam. The technique itself is not spam, but the way someone could apply it could be.
I've seen evidence to suggest Google can't even spot text the same colour as the background when done in HTML, let alone done in CSS. So I don't think you're at risk of getting an automatic ban. The risk of keyword stuffing you're FIR text, getting spotted by a competitor and being reported is probably more likely.
FIR isn't really a good solution to the problem, it provides the extra style, but doesn't provide the levels of uability and accessibility that its meant to. And part of the reason why often (well some anyway) people will just use some plain text in a mroe standard font anyway.
I'm not 100% sure how the linking would work. It would kind of depend on how you set you're CSS up I think and which bits you were hiding etc... As you're image is going to be a background image, you're not going to have the usual <a href="#"><img src="#"></a> type syntax. And if you wrap the text in an <a href=""></a> and then hide it, its not going to pick that up either.
With a bit of thinking and some extra markup, you should be able to create something that would link, I'd have to give it some thought though. As far as whether the SE will crawl it. Well, as far as they are concerned, you've got a link with some text in, so yeah they should be able to crawl it. Again, if you link the text and then use CSS to hide it, you'll end up with what is effectively a hidden link, except to people without CSS. Another possible place for problems, but can be done correctly as well.
Done properly it should help you're SEO efforts over just having a image there and you shouldn't get penalised for it. If you choose to stuff the hidden text, you take your own risks. If you're currently using plain text headings, you're going to lose some usability and accessibility by using it. If you're currently just using images for headings for the extra styling, you're probably going to improve the usability and accessibility a bit, but not to an ideal situation. Its a question of balance.
Posted 04 February 2004 - 06:53 AM
But you still have problems with CSS capable browsers with images turned off.
Posted 04 February 2004 - 09:30 AM
I've seen people using the technique of dispay:hidden or pushing a div off the side of a screen to hide large amounts of content without being automatically picked up, so the risk there is minimal I think. That, or, rather than penalising sites using the method, the text in the hidden area is just being ignored as far as rank is concerned.
Besides, with roughly 10% of people going aorund with JS off, thats just going to add another problem to it
Posted 04 February 2004 - 10:29 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users