Google:
It is the oldest trick in the standardista's book, when lacking in
citations, to say that the technique impinges on SEO. Shame on you!
Hehe. Not seriously suggesting malice. I also believe Google puts my
site ahead of everything else based on my excellent CSS management. Hehehe.
Logo:
I think the only reason this debate can carry on for so long without
anybody bumping into hard regulatory standards is because the semantic
definition of a logo is an ambiguous thing - Jens, recommending them as
elements for HTML5 would be great, hehehe.
There's always the thing of corporate branding websites being thin on
content and massive on flashy presentation. The presentation is the
content in those cases. You get the impression with these things, when
the only real translatable content is meaningless marketing jargon, a
catchphrase and possibly contact details, that these people would want
an alternative for the apparently ever increasing demographic of users
with large black Times over a white background, an alternative content
of "Just go away". In these cases I really believe there's nothing to
offer people who whether through choice or ability cannot access
visuals/some basic amount of ten-year-old technology.
Many sites want their logo at the top of the page, and they want it to
make an impression. However, if the user has no access to images, do you
really want them to go through "header: image: logo" or "this is the
brand title and slogan" at every turn? I'd argue against. They will most
likely know where they are (at least I hope so) from having accessed the
page via a search results blurb, a descriptive external link, the site's
root, and/or the <title> - if they don't, something's amiss there.
Ultimately, what I'd want is a CSS3 function "text-display:none". Jens
is right, a logo's a complex thing... But in most instances I feel that
a logo _is_ a purely visual icon. Granted, it has meaning, but as I
struggle to explain to a great many CSS designers, for me, all visual
content must have meaning and all of it is some abstraction of content
in my eyes (I'm not insane, most people do access the web via their
eyes, not through view-source!). I'm not explaining this incredibly
well, but there is a gist somewhere in the last 3 paragraphs.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
