Moving code from external stylesheet to internal

On 6 Aug, 17:18, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m... (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote:

"Our full service organic search engine optimisation (SEO) packages

Organic? You mean, cheap interns?


"Organic Search Engine Optimisation is People!"

On 6 Aug, 20:30, Andy Dingley <ding... (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:

On 6 Aug, 16:41, Stapes <steve.sta... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

The present top header should be seperated so that the logo can be
used as a home page link, this would enable the optimisation of the
page with added alt text; alt tag and link can then be applied.

What you've missed are the implications of how you've done the logo so
far (as a CSS background image), how Neuticles reckon it should be
done (with an alt text), and the basic incompatibility between these.

* If you have an "image" (as <img>) then use alt text, and probably
the title attribute too.

* If you want "eye candy" that's not an "image", then do it with a CSS
background. This doesn't (and can't) have alt text or non-graphical
accessibility alternatives. Nor will it print easily, or be easily
accessed by client-side tools like the crude IE image toolbar.

There's a basic incompatibility here. If an image is "content", then
don't use a CSS background to embed it. If it's really just eye candy,
then it doesn't need alt texts and the rest. If it does, was it really
disposable eye candy?

The question is, which is a "site logo"? If you ask the VP of
Marketing, then it's the most important thing on the site. If you ask
a user, no-one cares a damn. So IMHO it's a background image and
trivial, unless I'm _forced_ to use it as a link (typically to a
homepage) which is a controversial practice, but if you're going to do
it, then do it well.

The site where corporate logos affect search performance are few and
far between. Maybe if you're a brand on the scale of "Hello Kitty".

Moving the stylsheets around for SEO reasons is still voodoo and
pointless.

Would you say the same regarding the top header here:
http://www.hotel-victoria.co.uk/, which uses /Portals/0/Hotel/Flash/
Banner.swf in flash?

Stapes

On 7 Aug, 09:33, Stapes <steve.sta... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Would you say the same regarding the top header here:http://www.hotel-victoria.co.uk/, which uses /Portals/0/Hotel/Flash/
Banner.swf in flash?

Flash is problematic for accessible content, pretty good for eye
candy.

The hotel site you cite is an interesting example. Usually Flash
headers like this are terrible: a hefty download to a trivial thing
that isn't worth it, and often ugly too. This one though is better
done than the usual and is an attractive and valuable addition to the
site.

It's still eye candy though. It's a scrolling wallpaper that no-one
can focus on, no-one can understand and it's just there to look good.
If it did have alt text, the text would be "Opulence. Now believe us".

It's not content. Nor is its _function_ to drive search engines. So
don't worry about in that sense. If you do need content (real content)
about the rooms shown on the banner, then write some content and some
proper <img>s to describe them, and treat that as accessible and
spiderable content.

On 2007-08-07, Stapes wrote:

Would you say the same regarding the top header here:
http://www.hotel-victoria.co.uk/, which uses /Portals/0/Hotel/Flash/
Banner.swf in flash?

The flash is the least of the problems on that page; it's just
distracting. See how the page looks in my browser:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/hv.jpg>.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 7 Aug, 09:33, Stapes <steve.sta... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Would you say the same regarding the top header here:http://www.hotel-victoria.co.uk/, which uses /Portals/0/Hotel/Flash/
Banner.swf in flash?

Flash is problematic for accessible content, pretty good for eye
candy.

And on dialup for more than a minute all I saw was a pretty white rectangle!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com