Is it still important to have links as text for bots to index pages?

[farscapeforever]

Hi all, my first post, so be kind.

I've been reading a lot about SEO lately, and one of the things many articles talk about is that page links should be done in text, not images, because bots (especially Google's bot) can't index other pages through images. Is this still true? I create some page elements in Fireworks, including my navigation, so it is an image, not text. I do this for aesthetic reasons, as well the fact that text gets moved around slightly in different browsers, and I want my navigation bar precise.

Am I hurting myself in search engines (especially Google) because of this. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Charles]

Images present problems for not just search engines but for Braille and audio browsers as well. Hence Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 1.1: Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ascii art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. [Priority 1]
For example, in HTML:
* Use "alt" for the IMG, INPUT, and APPLET elements, or provide a text equivalent in the content of the OBJECT and APPLET elements.
* For complex content (e.g., a chart) where the "alt" text does not provide a complete text equivalent, provide an additional description using, for example, "longdesc" with IMG or FRAME, a link inside an OBJECT element, or a description link.
* For image maps, either use the "alt" attribute with AREA, or use the MAP element with A elements (and other text) as content.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-text-equivalent

[farscapeforever]

Ok, I can use alt text. Does that solve the indexing problem?

[Charles]

It should. But if you are worried about it then use the OBJECT element instead of IMG (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.3). The OBJECT element has been around since 18 December 1997 and it will work on any competent, graphical browser. I can't seem to get it to work on that piece of dung MSIE, though.

With the OBJECT element you can do things like:

<object data="myHeading.png" type="image/png"><h1>My <small>humble</small> Heading</h1></object>

Non-graphical browsers, search engines and graphical browsers that are pieces of dung sill simply ignore the OBJECT tags and "see" what those tags enclose.

[farscapeforever]

Thanks Charles, I appreciate the advice. I see talking about IE hits a nerve! Unfortunately, when IE users total 90% of the Internet population, it's a cross we all must bear.

Thanks again. If anyone else has additional thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

[Ribeyed]

Hi,
to save me typing out something i allrady wrote a while back here is the link, i think this would be relevant to you.
http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?threadid=2888
and also a small bit here:

http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3354
hope this helps

[farscapeforever]

Some good reading, Ribeyed. Your points on SEO are very much along the line of what I've been reading the last few months. For some reason, I find it completely facinating. I think it's because there's some small element of unknown to it. No one knows for certain what the exact formula is, and just when everyone thinks they've got it, BOOM, Google changes it (like they seem to be doing recently).

Your prior posts lead me to another thought. I'd love to be able to create an entire site in Flash. Some of the best sites I've seen are done in all Flash. But of course, there's the search engine problem. If a site was done in Flash, and invisible text was added, not to fool or mislead anyone, but just to give search engines text to find, would Google consider that acceptable? Or will a bot see a hidden layer and automatically consider it an attempt to somehow cheat? Again, it would only be duplicate text for the purpose of allowing it to be seen since it wasn't being seen in Flash. Has anyone tried this and had positive or adverse results?

[Ribeyed]

Hi,
Thank you for you comments. You are correct in assume google would see that as cheating.
I was at a seminar about SEO. If you are in the UK this was at the Small Business Gateway funded by the UK government. The information was give to us by a successful Scottish company based in Edinburgh whose business is Search Engine Optimization. Now one of there clients was band/not listed from google because there clients designer hide text under graphics etc.
I see where you are coming from in regard to Flash, I to find it aesthetically pleasing and do agree a lot of good sites are built in Flash, but the bad thing is Google doesn't like it.
What i have see on sites is 2 versions, have a flash and HTML etc. of the same site. That way google can spider one and you can so off your Flash talents on the other.