Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
Many thanks for replies. I have a partially formed view. I mention partially because until sitting down in an Edinburgh pub with a knowledgeable blind person I'd had a complete view. I believe content comes first. It should read well, both in screen readers and SE bots. Accordingly, a detailed analysis of content should be taken. SEF comes next. So, taken with content the layout must create the biggest impact. I'm pleased about the suggestion of setting body top margin and height to allow for text resizing in a header section placed well down in HTML flow and having equal ems height setting. That dovetails with my thoughts. Finally, competent use of CSS to fulfil professional page design should fit the above two paradigms. I was unsure. The insight of CSS pros has helped a lot. Incidentally, using the foregoing technique in an experiment, together with feeds to blog repositories like Technorati, resulted within 8 hours of publication in SE front page placing in Google and Yahoo. Three separate articles on three separate days. In summary, my view so far is that as well as setting out pages CSS if used well, and perhaps different to the so called norm can result in improved SEO as well as good browser compatible layout. Or is there something else? Mike A. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
tedd wrote: Using anything /may/ cause problems -- it's the experience/skill of the user that makes the difference. If by user you mean 'the visitor', then no particular experience/skill should matter. The basics should just work, and the rest should not prevent it from doing so. If, OTOH, by user you mean 'the designer/coder', then you certainly have a point. CSS is a wonderful tool, but CSS shouldn't be used to repair what's been intentionally broken for whatever reason. The same with javascript and other design-tools, as they all will give optimal results when the base - source-code - is optimized. Yeah, but that doesn't stop people from using a screwdriver to drive a nail. How do they do that :-) I prefer to use a sledgehammer - and big nails ;-) The point is that css _can_ be used in various ways to accomplish it's canonical purpose, which is to separate content from presentation. As with everything, repair/broke, good/bad, should/shouldn't -- they are all in the eye of the beholder -- I can only judge how it affects me. Point taken. There are billions of weak and partially dysfunctional pages/sites around, and new ones are created, as you describe, each day. This seems to be the rule more than the exception, a fact that by some is interpreted as: anything goes. This list: 'css-d' isn't particularly targeted at changing that, and I personally couldn't care less how people go about their business of using CSS - unless they ask me. If someone do ask - as is the case here - then I'll completely reject the thought of CSS-use, or /anything/ in web design, being solely in the eye of the beholder - except maybe taste. Everything should meet or exceed a minimum set of technical requirements in that it has to work and deliver content in a somewhat intelligent way, without deliberately, or ignorance-based, excluding some visitors. Web standards, and discussion-lists like this one, are here to help meeting those technical requirements, and the fact that _all_ web design related tools and standards can be _misused at will_, doesn't change anything - regardless of what angle you, or anyone, look at web design from. You _can_ to a large degree judge how /any/ web design decision/solution will affect others. If you don't have the tools and means available at your end to base such judgments on, then you just have to ask (at least some of) the others, and build up a knowledge base of what does work and what doesn't - where. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
At 4:49 AM +0200 5/30/06, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: tedd wrote: Pitfalls: - repositioned bits and pieces may not scale well when subjected to font-resizing. Use em's. Using 'em' for dimensioning and positioning works just fine in some cases, but not at all in others. It all depends of what those bits and pieces are and where they're going, and although I don't have any major problems with scaling (since I always try to design and test for the extremes), I know that many designers/sites do, so scaling /may/ cause problems. Using anything /may/ cause problems -- it's the experience/skill of the user that makes the difference. -snip- (good points on disabilities) CSS is a wonderful tool, but CSS shouldn't be used to repair what's been intentionally broken for whatever reason. The same with javascript and other design-tools, as they all will give optimal results when the base - source-code - is optimized. Yeah, but that doesn't stop people from using a screwdriver to drive a nail. The point is that css _can_ be used in various ways to accomplish it's canonical purpose, which is to separate content from presentation. As with everything, repair/broke, good/bad, should/shouldn't -- they are all in the eye of the beholder -- I can only judge how it affects me. tedd -- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
My question is this: is it more search engine friendly to use a mark-up format of Columns / Header / Footer and use CSS position:absolute to place Header above Columns and Footer? If so, what are the pitfalls, if any? TIA for response. Mike A. Hi Mike, I think thelist (http://lists.evolt.org) would be better suited for SEO questions but basically if you did that and some was browsing in say, Lynx or using a screenreader the page would be just a wee bit confusing. Its better to accomodate users than it is search engines. Rob __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
Robert O'Rourke wrote: My question is this: is it more search engine friendly to use a mark-up format of Columns / Header / Footer and use CSS position:absolute to place Header above Columns and Footer? If so, what are the pitfalls, if any? I think thelist (http://lists.evolt.org) would be better suited for SEO questions but basically if you did that and some was browsing in say, Lynx or using a screenreader the page would be just a wee bit confusing. Its better to accomodate users than it is search engines. Thanks Robert, My apologies, I wasn't specific enough. My question was intended to point towards CSS issues of using flow in the way under consideration. So I should have written, what are the CSS pitfalls, if any? I accept, of course, there are other issues, especially accessibility ones, but they are outside the scope of CSS and can perhaps be conquered by other means including adequate content placement. Mike A. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
Thanks Robert, My apologies, I wasn't specific enough. My question was intended to point towards CSS issues of using flow in the way under consideration. So I should have written, what are the CSS pitfalls, if any? I accept, of course, there are other issues, especially accessibility ones, but they are outside the scope of CSS and can perhaps be conquered by other means including adequate content placement. Mike A No worries Mike I've done the same thing myself, I guess just using appropriate headers in the content would be enough for the accessibility. CSS-wise i think position: absolute or fixed could work. If I were you I would give the header a height in ems and pad the body at the top with the equivalent amount of ems to allow for re-sizing. I use this method to position the navigation at the top of the page usually. If the navigation and header are images in which case fixed pixel heights etc... are better suited. As far as pitfalls go it's down to cross-browser rendering of absolutely positioned elements. I use the strict-mode doctype nearly all the time now and have a lot fewer issues with layout as a result. If you're just positioning an h1 at the top it should be straight-forward. Hope this helps, Rob __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
At 2:23 PM +0100 5/29/06, Mike A wrote: I've mostly lurked on this list for more than three years but had this niggling issue going round in my mind. As I understand it, best search engine results are obtained by placing content nearest the top of page code - matching key words in h1, alt, title tags and first sentence of content is of crucial importance. Conventional mark-up and layout results in the typical HTML page format of Header / Columns / Footer format for natural page flow. My question is this: is it more search engine friendly to use a mark-up format of Columns / Header / Footer and use CSS position:absolute to place Header above Columns and Footer? If so, what are the pitfalls, if any? TIA for response. Mike A. Mike: This is debatable as to being on-topic, but because it deals with how css can be used, I'll comment. May the Admin Gods forgive me if they see otherwise. I think I know where you're going with this -- because I've been there myself. With css you can display things one-way for the viewer and another way for SE's -- no problem. SE's read site-text from the beginning to the end, but with css you can change that for the viewer. I wrote an example once, but can't seem to find it at the moment. But, I know it can be done. As for pitfalls, it depends upon how the SE people look at what you did when a competitor complains about your ranking above their site. Outside, of that, and making things a bit more difficult for yourself, I don't see any downside. tedd -- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
Conventional mark-up and layout results in the typical HTML page format of Header / Columns / Footer format for natural page flow. My question is this: is it more search engine friendly to use a mark-up format of Columns / Header / Footer and use CSS position:absolute to place Header above Columns and Footer? If so, what are the pitfalls, if any? I'll ignore the SE part as not relevant on css-d, but rearranging / designing sequence with CSS is definitely on topic here. Plenty of pitfalls, but most depends on how you define header. I rearrange / design headers in sequence all the time, but I use composite headers. A header might be: 1: package of eye-catching stuff you'd like to present on top, but which doesn't change the informational value of the page if it is somewhere else in the document-sequence. That's what I call a one piece designer header. IMO: you can move it around anyway you like. Pitfalls: - repositioned headers may not scale well when subjected to font-resizing. - may be created more for the look of it than for the semantics of source-code and content. In short: it may not make sense - with or without CSS. --- 2: introduction to the content, which must stay on top in order to make sense. That's what I call a real header. IMO: don't move it around for SE or any other UA. Just style it up where it is. Pitfalls: - none, AFAIK. --- 3: headline + bits and pieces from the document + site-design parts. That's what I call a composite header. IMO: those bits and pieces are created/suitable for repositioning, and should improve the experience in both CSS-able and non-CSS-able UAs when arranged correctly. Site design parts may be all-CSS, or repositioned from somewhere else in the flow - or both. Pitfalls: - repositioned bits and pieces may not scale well when subjected to font-resizing. --- Simple example with composite header: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_02_02.html With css you can display things one-way for the viewer and another way for SE's -- no problem. I see plenty of potential problems for a number of Users if this isn't done right on _all_ levels. As mentioned: not all User Agents are CSS-able, which may leave some viewers with a SE-experience. It better be a good one :-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
Pitfalls: - repositioned bits and pieces may not scale well when subjected to font-resizing. Use em's. Simple example with composite header: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_02_02.html With css you can display things one-way for the viewer and another way for SE's -- no problem. I see plenty of potential problems for a number of Users if this isn't done right on _all_ levels. I said viewer not user. I'm/we're talking about display elements, not for all users (i.e., visually impaired). However, outside of that, I'm not sure as to what _all_ levels to which you're referring. tedd -- http://sperling.com/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Generally: CSS and SEO
tedd wrote: Pitfalls: - repositioned bits and pieces may not scale well when subjected to font-resizing. Use em's. Using 'em' for dimensioning and positioning works just fine in some cases, but not at all in others. It all depends of what those bits and pieces are and where they're going, and although I don't have any major problems with scaling (since I always try to design and test for the extremes), I know that many designers/sites do, so scaling /may/ cause problems. With css you can display things one-way for the viewer and another way for SE's -- no problem. I see plenty of potential problems for a number of Users if this isn't done right on _all_ levels. I said viewer not user. I'm/we're talking about display elements, not for all users (i.e., visually impaired). I'm not visually impaired (at least not yet), but I regularly prefer to read, look at, or listen to, pages/sites at a non-CSS level. Not all SEO sites make all that much sense when viewed, or listent to, unstyled, and I see that as potential problems. However, outside of that, I'm not sure as to what _all_ levels to which you're referring. All levels that any regular User Agent (browsers - including regular user-options and assisting technology) base their reproduction for visitors on, should be given optimal attention during the design-process. By optimal I mean as good as possible with the tools at hand. That means that non-CSS-able User Agents should not be given a source-code that obviously is put together in a way that is less than optimal. Users of such User Agents may not get the same experience as users of CSS-able User Agents get, but it should be optimized. CSS is a wonderful tool, but CSS shouldn't be used to repair what's been intentionally broken for whatever reason. The same with javascript and other design-tools, as they all will give optimal results when the base - source-code - is optimized. As mentioned: I usually rearrange and reposition headers, or rather parts of headers, but I also make sure my source-code has the content-worthy part(s) of the header on top. I think it is called: ordered source-code (or at least that's what I call it), and it's a good base for CSS enhancements. I never bother about SE-ranking (mentioning it here since that was part of, or reason behind, the original question), but I don't think I'm loosing any by playing fair game and optimizing my designs on all levels. *Recommended*. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
