Jazajay
Active Member
Huh like your view point on semantics, huh truly impressed, lol.
Also like the arguments, and hopefully I can bring some good points to the table.
Anyhoo the keywords meta is a minor issue as long as it is not over stuffed my personal opinion though it is pretty much useless and the time spent filling it wont bring you any noticeable increase in rankings, but I still respect your opinion if you want to use it I suppose.
You are right Yahoo! may still use it and the other 1 being AltaVista as far as I can remember it's TBH not something I check, due to the fact that it is now pointless IMO, and has been since 1998 for the majority of engines so....
Now the point is valid, and yes the W3C does say that but lets think of it's actual implementation.
You have a link like this ~
<a href="http://www.designforums.co.uk/images/portfolio/web/kostya-home.jpg" class="lightview" rel="gallery[kostya]" title="Kostya Magic :: Home page Design"><img src="http://www.designforums.co.uk/images/featured/featured-frame-kostya2.jpg" alt="Kostya Magic Design"/><span class="gall-type">Web Design</span></a>
Now how will a screen reader read that out to a blind user?
Which is what the W3C is getting at mainly, not entirely of coarse.
[link1] Kostya Magic colon colon Home page Design Kostya Magic Design Web Design
When what they should just hear is
[link1] Kostya Magic Home page Design
As the rest is just plain irritating, TBH because of the title attribute.
Now what you quote actually says is
You are not, that title attributes content is not adding any clarification to the process, it's just repeating the same content, that is not clarification.
Also how does this link need to be clarified?
<a href="about.php" title="About Todd Adams">About Me</a>
It doesn't, it obvious to its destination it's a page about you, therefore no clarification is needed and we bring back in the word may. That word does not mean necessity, it means it can be added if the link is unclear to it's destination, that does not mean it has to be added as it doesn't on that link, again due to the fact that no clarification is needed to what that page is about, it's about you.
And your good to go, but the problem with that is you have already clarified the point with your tag line just above it, and in the text just below it so that would be pointless, so therefore we have a trade off, semantics for better rankings.
Now don't get me wrong I am always for semantics but I wont let semantics get in the way of rankings, that is pure madness, and as your current h1 of welcome is correct, semantically, it wont do you any good in the search engines, and as the h1 has more weight in all engines, than the keyword meta, then you want it to be spot on TBH. So logically your h1 needs to contain your keywords for the search engines, which is what the alt attribute on your logo tag does for your home page. Does that make sense about that point?
You can always continue with your current way and hope you don't get penalized for cloaking as that is what you are doing, showing different content to the search engines than what the site visitor gets.
Huh like the fact someone's challenged me, lol, and you did have some good arguments IMO. :lol:
Jaz
Key:
Purple ~ XHTML
Green ~ Screen read output
Also like the arguments, and hopefully I can bring some good points to the table.
Anyhoo the keywords meta is a minor issue as long as it is not over stuffed my personal opinion though it is pretty much useless and the time spent filling it wont bring you any noticeable increase in rankings, but I still respect your opinion if you want to use it I suppose.
You are right Yahoo! may still use it and the other 1 being AltaVista as far as I can remember it's TBH not something I check, due to the fact that it is now pointless IMO, and has been since 1998 for the majority of engines so....
True totally but not in all cases, Jim Thatcher chairman of the 508 committee on web accessibility actually says ~in the past always pointed to title tags being a necessity for accessibility
Cite: Source of quoteMore Is Not Better
Often, someone new to accessibility wants to do more— with the idea that more must be better. Let' s look at an example from my hometown of Austin, Texas.
A wonderful event called the Accessibility Internet Rally of Austin, or AIR Austin, ....I have been a judge for AIR for a number of years. I was impressed with a form on one of the winning sites in AIR Austin 2005......
I am sure the team who designed the form thought that by adding more accessibility accommodations they would get more points. When I judged this site, the team got points for trying a form, but they lost on providing accessibility. This form is an example of the fact that more is not necessarily better. It uses the following techniques:
- Each text-input field has default text (such as value="Contact name"). As discussed in the guidelines section at the beginning of this chapter, the WCAG Priority 3 checkpoint requiring default text is not applicable anymore because assistive technologies do recognize input fields when they are blank.
- The legend for each fieldset repeats the on-screen prompt. The <legend> tag should be used to enclose groups of controls with a common purpose, such as groups of check boxes or radio buttons where the legend provides the corresponding question. When the size of the group is one, you should reconsider the design.
- The label element is used as a container around both the on-screen prompt and the control. As explained in the previous section, this is not a good idea.
- The label element includes a correctly coded for attribute matching the id of the control. This is the only accommodation that should have been used.
Now the point is valid, and yes the W3C does say that but lets think of it's actual implementation.
You have a link like this ~
<a href="http://www.designforums.co.uk/images/portfolio/web/kostya-home.jpg" class="lightview" rel="gallery[kostya]" title="Kostya Magic :: Home page Design"><img src="http://www.designforums.co.uk/images/featured/featured-frame-kostya2.jpg" alt="Kostya Magic Design"/><span class="gall-type">Web Design</span></a>
Now how will a screen reader read that out to a blind user?
Which is what the W3C is getting at mainly, not entirely of coarse.
[link1] Kostya Magic colon colon Home page Design Kostya Magic Design Web Design
When what they should just hear is
[link1] Kostya Magic Home page Design
As the rest is just plain irritating, TBH because of the title attribute.
Now what you quote actually says is
Now by repeating the anchor text in the title attribute how are you accomplishing this?...may further clarify....
You are not, that title attributes content is not adding any clarification to the process, it's just repeating the same content, that is not clarification.
Also how does this link need to be clarified?
<a href="about.php" title="About Todd Adams">About Me</a>
It doesn't, it obvious to its destination it's a page about you, therefore no clarification is needed and we bring back in the word may. That word does not mean necessity, it means it can be added if the link is unclear to it's destination, that does not mean it has to be added as it doesn't on that link, again due to the fact that no clarification is needed to what that page is about, it's about you.
Yeah I totally agree semantically that is your page heading, simple then just replace welcome with Welcome to the Online Portfolio of Web Designer Todd Adams.but the more I thought about it, it didn't seem semantically correct.
And your good to go, but the problem with that is you have already clarified the point with your tag line just above it, and in the text just below it so that would be pointless, so therefore we have a trade off, semantics for better rankings.
Now don't get me wrong I am always for semantics but I wont let semantics get in the way of rankings, that is pure madness, and as your current h1 of welcome is correct, semantically, it wont do you any good in the search engines, and as the h1 has more weight in all engines, than the keyword meta, then you want it to be spot on TBH. So logically your h1 needs to contain your keywords for the search engines, which is what the alt attribute on your logo tag does for your home page. Does that make sense about that point?
You can always continue with your current way and hope you don't get penalized for cloaking as that is what you are doing, showing different content to the search engines than what the site visitor gets.
Well then that's fine but to me I prefer to remove any ambiguity in wording, the way i would write it would not annoy someone who knows what it means, but would also convey to a lay man the benefits of it. Marketing in other words, explaining the benefits of features rather than listing features.Yes average lay people will not understand it, but thats fine to me.
Huh like the fact someone's challenged me, lol, and you did have some good arguments IMO. :lol:
Jaz
Key:
Purple ~ XHTML
Green ~ Screen read output