Moving code from external stylesheet to internal

On 6 Aug, 15:51, Andy Dingley <ding....TakeThisOut@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 6 Aug, 14:34, Stapes <steve.sta....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have this entry in my stylesheet main1.css:
> > I am trying to move it into the web page code for Search Engine
> > Optimisation purposes, thus:
>
> Ridiculously pointless, so stop trying to do that.
>
> Just where did you find this crazy piece of wrong-headed voodoo?

Just about everyone but you.

Wrong-headed voodoo saint.

On 6 Aug, 16:28, John Hosking <J... DeleteThis @DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID>
wrote:
> Stapes wrote:
> > On 6 Aug, 15:55, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> > <a.nony.m... DeleteThis @example.invalid> wrote:
> >> Stapes wrote:
> >>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
> >>>> Why? Do you think people search for .. "width:310px" ?
> >>> No - I am hoping they might pick up the alt text to the image.
> >> The alt text should be in the HTML <img> element (where it is), and
> >> isn't part of your style sheet, or inline style. They will find it,
> >> regardless of your styling method.
>
> > Surely not! - where is the alt text in this:
>
> > #head {
> > width: 310px;
> > height: 60px;
> > float: left;
> > display: block;
> > background-image: url(logo.jpg);
> > background-position: left top;
> > background-repeat: no-repeat;
> > }
>
> Nowhere, it'd be in the <div id="head"><img src="" alt =""></div>
> if you had one.
>
> You misunderstand Beauregard, but he misunderstood you. I think you
> misunderstood him through either careless reading or a lack of
> experience. I reckon he misunderstood you because you want something so
> weird, and your initial explanation didn't make it clear.
>
> You want a logo to be in the markup (instead of being a BG image) so
> that you can provide an alt image, in the rather twisted belief that
> search engines will see the alt property and drive traffic to your site
> and you will become rich beyond your dreams. Or something.
>
> Don't do that. It's perverted. You're messing up (and bulking up) the
> markup when the logo is really just decorative. It's not content, so
> leave it out of the content (HTML). It belongs in the CSS, so leave it
> there.
>
> "Driving Instructor Insurance - Instructor Cover" is terrible (morally
> invalid) alt text anyway. I'm blind to the image in question, and this
> alt text is wholly inadequate to convey to me what the missing image
> represents.
>
> BTW, you can omit the background-position: left top; display:block; in
> your first inline attempt (your OP). You've got no background image in
> that case, so background-position is meaningless. And the div is
> probably display:block by default, so skip that too.
>
> Best of all, though, leave the logo as a BG image in the CSS.
>
> >> ...
>
> In future, please trim content unnecessary to your response.
>
> --
> John
> Pondering the value of the UIP:http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well John,
we paid for a report from Neutralize: Independent Internet Marketing
Services, who say this:

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 exactly do you mean by 'morally invalid'? Is there anything
morally valid about car insurance?

Stapes

On 6 Aug, 16:41, Stapes <steve.sta....TakeThisOut@gmail.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.

On 6 Aug, 17:18, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m....DeleteThis@example.invalid> wrote:

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

Organic? You mean, cheap interns?


"Organic Search Engine Optimisation is People!"

Stapes wrote:

> On 6 Aug, 15:51, Andy Dingley <ding... RemoveThis @codesmiths.com> wrote:
>> On 6 Aug, 14:34, Stapes <steve.sta... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have this entry in my stylesheet main1.css:
>>> I am trying to move it into the web page code for Search Engine
>>> Optimisation purposes, thus:
>>
>> Ridiculously pointless, so stop trying to do that.
>>
>> Just where did you find this crazy piece of wrong-headed voodoo?
>
> Just about everyone but you.
>
> Wrong-headed voodoo saint.

I agree with Andy.

As stated (or implied), Google will read the external style sheet for
every page it attempts to index. It does not need to be within the
separate page code itself. (Another SEO scam bites the dust?)

--
-bts
-also a wrong-headed voodoo saint?

Stapes wrote:
> On 6 Aug, 15:55, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.nony.m....DeleteThis@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Stapes wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> Why? Do you think people search for .. "width:310px" ?
>>> No - I am hoping they might pick up the alt text to the image.
>> The alt text should be in the HTML <img> element (where it is), and
>> isn't part of your style sheet, or inline style. They will find it,
>> regardless of your styling method.
>
> Surely not! - where is the alt text in this:
>
> #head {
> width: 310px;
> height: 60px;
> float: left;
> display: block;
> background-image: url(logo.jpg);
> background-position: left top;
> background-repeat: no-repeat;
> }

Nowhere, it'd be in the <div id="head"><img src="" alt =""></div>
if you had one.

You misunderstand Beauregard, but he misunderstood you. I think you
misunderstood him through either careless reading or a lack of
experience. I reckon he misunderstood you because you want something so
weird, and your initial explanation didn't make it clear.

You want a logo to be in the markup (instead of being a BG image) so
that you can provide an alt image, in the rather twisted belief that
search engines will see the alt property and drive traffic to your site
and you will become rich beyond your dreams. Or something.

Don't do that. It's perverted. You're messing up (and bulking up) the
markup when the logo is really just decorative. It's not content, so
leave it out of the content (HTML). It belongs in the CSS, so leave it
there.

"Driving Instructor Insurance - Instructor Cover" is terrible (morally
invalid) alt text anyway. I'm blind to the image in question, and this
alt text is wholly inadequate to convey to me what the missing image
represents.

BTW, you can omit the background-position: left top; display:block; in
your first inline attempt (your OP). You've got no background image in
that case, so background-position is meaningless. And the div is
probably display:block by default, so skip that too.

Best of all, though, leave the logo as a BG image in the CSS.

>> ...
>>

In future, please trim content unnecessary to your response.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Stapes wrote:
> On 6 Aug, 16:28, John Hosking wrote:
>>
>> "Driving Instructor Insurance - Instructor Cover" is terrible (morally
>> invalid) alt text anyway. I'm blind to the image in question, and this
>> alt text is wholly inadequate to convey to me what the missing image
>> represents.

>>>> ...
>> In future, please trim content unnecessary to your response.

Please learn how to post and, especially, to trim. Maybe this'll help
you: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#quote

I know GoogleGroups makes it hard for you. All the more reason to pay
attention and trim (and also to use a real newsreader instead of GG).

>
> Well John,
> we paid for a report from Neutralize: Independent Internet Marketing
> Services, who say this:
>
> 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.

You may be able to make the div a link anyway, but now we're back to
asking for a URL again.

I'm not sure I'd blindly follow Neutralize, even if I'd paid them. There
are a few funny things going on at http://www.neutralize.com/ (although
it's not really a bad site). They do have a point about a clickable
logo, although whether this approach "would enable the optimisation of
the page" is questionable, IMO. Depends on the URL, I guess.

In general (and I forgot to mention this in my previous post), your
actual content presumably already talks about Driving Instructor
Insurance and related issues enough to give search engines an accurate
guide to what your page is about. I wouldn't mangle the page structure
just to invent an alt attribute.

>
> What exactly do you mean by 'morally invalid'? Is there anything
> morally valid about car insurance?

As opposed to "legally invalid" (against the law) or, um, just "invalid"
(contrary to specs or W3C recommendations), by "morally invalid" I mean
it goes against the spirit of what alt texts are. It's not right to use
an alt text which doesn't (even pretend to) substitute for the image
when it's not visible.

For "Driving Instructor Insurance - Instructor Cover" to be valid (BWIM
my "morally valid" usage), the image would have to be some kind of
headgear or rigid tarpaulin thingy, which would protect a driving
instructor in a collision, reducing his or her insurance costs. Your
logo would have to be that image. I bet that's not how it is.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

On 6 Aug, 20:30, Andy Dingley <ding....TakeThisOut@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 6 Aug, 16:41, Stapes <steve.sta....TakeThisOut@gmail.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....DeleteThis@gmail.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....RemoveThis@gmail.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