CSS usage for text links - doubt cast by Google's

.. request for hidden/paid link reporting

[SuzyUK]

Having followed the weekends mild storm re:
Matt Cutts Comments Bring Advertising Links into Focus [webmasterworld.com]

I'm now starting to see some comments on a couple of blogs about people who are fretting because they've used CSS to "blend" links or have simply used it to remove the underlines. One comment is from a gentleman (a mod here, who might read this ;)) - he gives a 'heads up' to a media company to change their CSS, IMHO adding to/highlighting the CSS usage FUD.

The page basically is black text on white, the company in question have used just CSS and removed the underlines from text links and the links are colored the same as the default text - UNTIL you hover on them then the cursor changes, they highlight to red and the status bar shows the destination

I'm sorry I just don't see the comparison between this, which is likely a usability/accessibility issue, and the example Matt Cutts gave on his blog, which used JS to hide status, and CSS to change the cursor and make sure there was no visible change at all on hover - in other words it had no indication at all that there were links there.

The usability issue can be fixed per user - a custom script or user CSS to force underlines on all links - so apart from that I don't see the media site are doing anything wrong

as some SEO's are suggesting that G are just spreading fear, uncertainty & doubt into the SEO community by requesting reports of hidden/paid links - I would like to suggest that this backlash is just spreading the same FUD for CSS usage - and that again the detection of what is naughty or nice can't be automatically detected let alone whether link is for traffic or PR or indeed paid - you/we know there are lots of other ways to hide links if you're determined - removing underlines and text color changes are not an indication of a hidden link alone it's a technique frequently used in navigation menus.

Should we simply expect that every site which uses CSS styled lists in their sidebars/footers, are going to be reported just in case :o

Should we make it law (it's only an accessibility guideline at the minute) that all links have to be underlined?

Should Google be able to dictate how we use CSS, design our pages?

any thoughts..

Suzy

[edited by: SuzyUK at 12:23 pm (utc) on April 17, 2007]

[Dabrowski]

Google are not the law. They are not W3C. They should have no say whatsoever about how people choose to write their sites, it's their job to adapt to us, not the other way around.

I personally prefer non-underlined links, and normally choose bold/coloured links instead.

There are probably 100s of ways to hide links, and G would have to manually look at each page including the source code to see. There are so many factors that unless you have 'dispaly: none' or something simple then automatic detection couldn't be done.

[Setek]

I'm sorry I just don't see the comparison between this, which is likely a usability/accessibility issue, and the example Matt Cutts gave on his blog, which used JS to hide status, and CSS to change the cursor and make sure there was no visible change at all on hover - in other words it had no indication at all that there were links there.

I have to agree. The issue is not that it is an advertising easter egg, but merely a design point that happens to be an accessibility issue.

Should we simply expect that every site which uses CSS styled lists in their sidebars/footers, are going to be reported just in case :o

It almost feels like a dictatorial society, doesn’t it :)

Should we make it law (it's only an accessibility guideline at the minute) that all links have to be underlined?

I don’t think that’s going to work. Wouldn’t people just begin to append those links to the end of other links?

<a href="normal-link.php">Normal</a><a href="http://www.easter-egg.com/"> link?</a>

Should Google be able to dictate how we use CSS, design our pages?

I say no. I think there is a line, of course, and if developers choose to step beyond that boundary then it’s their fault. However, there isn’t one steadfast rule that can say “Oh yep, they’re making easter eggs for sure.”

We are allowed many CSS properties, and I don’t know if anybody’s noticed, but most of them can be abused in some way. When some sort of functionality is created, there will be those that find a way to abuse it. Does that mean they should hinder or stop the progress of those who only try to create beautiful designs that also happen to be accessible? I’ve known many a time where a design does not permit visible skip to links, so they get hidden through CSS. Will

visibility: hidden;

be outlawed because of it? What about

display: none;

? What about CSS Image Replacement techniques, such as

text-indent: -10000em;

simply because there’s an image that looks prettier to display the exact same text that’s in the link? Is there an end?

Will we be allowed to do anything?

If not, I’m sure I’ll be out of a job the day they say you can only have plain text websites. Anybody that knows Notepad can start one then…

[Dabrowski]

A post-it to my last post, it should be noted however that G absolutely have to right to choose if they want to index you or not. They are their own company after all, and it is their service.

So to a certain extent I guess they can say "do it this way or we won't list you".