| 1:11 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Probably not...I have thought about this in the past and come to the conclusion that, if Google penalized for 1x1 graphics, their search results would disappear :)
A 1x1 image, whether invisible or not, is a valid design tool...a 1x1 invisible link can never be utilized by a real person and therefore is spam.
| 2:25 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
cant you preload with java script?
| 2:31 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
interesting. never heard of this, but it has some distinct advantages.
using 1x1 images would work in browsers with js disabled and also result in less code = smaller page size.
| 2:44 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There's no reason to be penalized for those small gifs if you don't stuff them with keywords or links.
Many sites use small gifs for accurate positionning of elements on the page.
| 2:56 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Many people use 1x1 for spacers, etc. As long as their is no keywords or links associated with them, you should be ok.
| 3:19 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
1 x 1 images and spacer bars are the only reliable and accurate way i have found to create tables that load the same across both ie and netscape...
I sincerely hope G does not penalise these as i've been using them for ages!
| 4:31 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What would be some "safe" alt tags to use for the 1x1 image?
The reason I ask is that you need "ALT" tags to verify as WC3 HTML4.01
| 5:07 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The preferred ALT tag for a spacer should be blank, eg.
<img src="spacer.gif" height="10" width="10" alt="">
This will validate as HTML 4.01.
| 6:09 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you *do* use 1x1 GIFs for formatting purposes, using alt="" is the right thing to do (make sure they are not linked, though, or you may get into trouble with the SE).
However, unless you have to support *really* old browsers, using CSS for layout may be a better (and faster) solution.
| 6:18 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 6:34 pm on Mar 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thank you, I will make the changes today.