Just as a side note, instead of doing a -9999px, try using -999em... In most cases, you can probably even get away with -99em. This has two advantages:
1) Its a few less characters in your CSS 2) If the user increases their font size, there is a chance that the thing you are hiding might start to re-appear from the negative indent. Highly unlikely, because it would have to be bigger than 9999px... However, if you are using em values, increasing the font size should actually move the text further out to the left. In terms of how this technique might affect SEO or accessibility, it has a chance of affecting both. I would take a big guess and say that search engine spiders may look at the amount of content you are moving offscreen - if it considers there to be a lot, it may start to get suspicious. In terms of accessibility, more often than not, image replacement for any text is generally a bad idea IMHO - but that said, I think you are safe to use this technique with a high likelihood that a screen reader will 'read out' the hidden content. Karl On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Hargreaves, Michael <michael.hargrea...@originenergy.com.au> wrote: > > If I have a css sprite that needs an alt text I'll position it behind > the image. My main reason for doing this has nothing to do with SEO > though. > With images off there is no context to what would've been rendered if > images were on. > > In my experience you really only need to use this (or the text indent > method) for buttons and the like. Most other image elements used (like > headers etc) can be specified in html and given an alt. > > I don't think text-indent will affect SEO at all though, it's a > legitimate css property. If the spiders are smart enough to know it's > there then they're smart enough to know if it's jammed with an unholy > string containing keywords. > > > >>Michael Hargreaves > > > -----Original Message----- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Chris Dimmock > Sent: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 12:05 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] SEO vs. Accessibility > > > "We can flag text that appears to be hidden using CSS at Google. To date > we have not algorithmically removed sites for doing that. We try hard to > avoid throwing babies out with bathwater." MattCutts at Oct 21 2005 - > 02:09 > > That was nearly 4 years ago - One of the issues is that sometimes, > Google does use automated "scaleable' processes for spam control (as is > their stated aim) - and sometimes it just rains babies..... > > My point? Any CSS 'hiding' method can be detected algorithmically. And > while it might be for accessibility/ usability/ whatever - it could get > you in trouble. Mostly it won't, if a human checks it, and there is a > accessibility/ usability/ rather than spam intent. > > But algorithms on their own can't detect 'intent'...... > > Chris > http://www.cogentis.com.au/ > > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:25 AM, David Dixon <da...@terrainferno.net> > wrote: > >> The thing to remember is that while its doubtful google will spot it >> through an automatic spider, google do manually check pages (either >> randomly, or when the spider, or even a person, flag something up). >> Its that manual detection that will spot this kind of fraud, and will >> likely result in an immediate ban. >> >> regards, >> >> David Dixon >> >> e: da...@temperedvision.com >> w: www.temperedvision.com >> >> On 26/5/09 17:26, Spellacy, Michael wrote: >> >> Hello list! I have a quick question for any accessibility and SEO >> mavens out there. It was recently brought to my attention that a few >> elements I have placed on a site that have text indented 9999px to the > >> left for accessibility might be viewed as a form of cloaking by some >> search engines. Is my colleague correct in this assessment? If so, is >> there a middle ground that can be met to make search engines and >> visually impaired folks happy? >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Regards, >> Spell >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> ******************************************************************* >> >> >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> ******************************************************************* > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Note: This email, including any attachments, is confidential. > If you have received this email in error, please advise the > sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. > If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must > not use, print, distribute, copy or disclose its content to anyone. > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
