| 12:32 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If the flash site is "full screen" I would tend to think this design style would be a turn-off to most visitors.
Use one or the other on any given web page.
Design a static HTML base version of the flash site would be better, providing choice.
CSS2 is also a better approach -- "layering". In this case the the text/graphic version is layered behind the flash version. A little like what the alt="" Tag does for images. Load time might be a concern here though.
| 1:14 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google says any text content designed to be read by a Search Engine but not visible to the visitor constitutes spam and will be penalised if detected. If it does not get detected, a competitor could report you and get you banned.
| 1:21 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You can always test for the flash plugin then serve up what is needed. Since this isn't purely for the search engines but is a usability issue it won't kill you in a hand review.
This will give you a little knowledge on detection.
Here is some info you can take back to your client
| 1:40 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Many thanks, I appreciate your input -should keep me occupied for a while!
| 5:37 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How about putting the site into a single frame, and then duplicating all the text in the Flash movie as a large single page site in the <noframes>?
This has worked for me in the past.
| 4:45 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yokelrobin, that's just what I was going to say. Put the Flash in a 100% frameset, and optimise the noframes. This has worked a treat for me too.
I don't think she's talking about a flash movie, but the whole shebang, flash navigation etc. This means condensing and summarising, around 250 words of focussed text.
I've had some really good results with <noframes>. The drawback of course is that you can only really go for a couple of decent phrases with any certainty.
The benefit is that it is quick, easy, and gets the job done with pure spider food, i.e. lot's of lovely <body>.
| 12:38 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks guys, that last seems a nice clean solution!
I've passed the tip on.
| 12:48 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
erika1959 the hidden z-layer is okay as long as you don't spam it to bits also add in the layers something on the line
<-- text version from none flash browser likes lynx /-->
make it look like a designer/development remark tag google will only ban you if they think you are trying to trick them.
everybody knows to flash is just a graphic and using a layer behind it should be ok.
| 12:51 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would be a little weary of the 100% frames.
| 1:22 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why is that? I presume you meant 'wary' not 'weary'?
| 1:28 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sorry typo yes wary.
It used to be known as the poor mans cloak. It is an old spam technique.
Heres a thread on it.
| 2:53 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My client's home page uses a large flash animation with some html text containing some well written content.
It ranks No1 on Altavista for the main search phrase out of 400,000+ results.
There is nothing wrong with flash in a page which contains solid html text to support search engines. I don't as a rule add a link to the site within the flash without placing also placing a text link on the page as well.