Forum Moderators: open
Is there anything special you must do to allow google to read your full flash 'websites'?
does it carry anywhere near the weight of a regular html site?
If it's true, then firstly I doubt it will carry the weight of HTML as I would expect the algorithm to downplay the importance of Flash sites, given that many Internet users won't be able to see it. Secondly, Google isn't the only search engine, so even if it is indexing flash sites, do you want a site that can only be read by one robot?
That way both the flash file and the HTML stay in synch and the spiders will pick up and index the text. Perfectly good solution all round, and avoids having to create two versions of the site.
The best way I've found to incorporate massive Flash while maintaining HTML/text content is to take the nod from Macromedia themselves. You'll notice Macromedia.com does not use 100% flash, but instead incorporates several components. Look into using the LocalConnection object to communicate between pieces.
imho
Its not as if we are using senseless repetition, or lists of key words, or usuing text with the same colour as the background, its readable content mirroring the flash files text, and is an acceptable way of allowing screen readers access to the site content?
Although since the spiders can't tell if the content is hidden or not then I don't see how the flash site could automaticly be baned and in the off chance the SE manualy searched it and found out that you were "black hating?" it then if your content was good and matched would they got to the trouble of baning it? They are there to provide information relating to the users search with the best/most likly on top. I don't think they are there just to frustrate Flash developers
that would be considered "black hat" and subject to bans, etc.
Not really. Providing text alternatives to flash content shouldn't really be a problem if a hand check shows that you are legitimately providing equal content. (Or at least as "equal" as possible.)
Now, if you are keyword stuffing or doing some other silliness in your "hidden" text, then yes, you should expect that to land you in trouble with the search engines. (And if you are doing silly things, they won't care if it's flash content in your "visible" areas or if it's text and gifs.)
given that many Internet users won't be able to see it
That being said, I think there is nothing worse then a Flash derived site. Back buttons are useless, hotlinking to a specific "page" is impossible, and 99% of the time they inhibit the quick access of information.
Chip-
The back button is a programmable resource
The browser's back button? Or a "back" button in the flash movie?
Do what I do, read, experiment, use it in your work. There is no substitute for knowledge obtained through effort.
For a long time, I went the usability/basics route, but now I'm realizing that a lot of people love eye-candy and it makes sense for this particular industry.
Does anyone have any suggestions/advice regarding developing a flash & HTML version of the same website. I want the "wow" effect for those who view it, and all the benefits of SEO for those coming from SE's/users who prefer to view it in HTML. I was planning on having a "HTML version" link on top of the home page but have most of the the page done in flash - a single self-contained swf that loads other modules as needed so you theoretically never have to leave that page - and all the transitions and everything are smooooooooth.
This is a shift from my previous plan which was to have an HTML site peppered here and there with flash to 1. create the first impression of sophistication and 2. allow interactivity with maps, etc. - where flash really shines, but also have the basic structure properly SEO'd.
Another thing - Flash 8 comes with an option to generate flash/version/javascript detect code but that results in 2 js includes and a vb include - will that hurt me SEO-wise?
From this thread I'm gathering that calling the same source txt files into the XHTML and Flash files would be a good way to keep synchronicity. Any other advice?
We were then able to serve up the same information from the same database, in both technologies, it would also have been possible to get the database to output as XML and call that in although experience has shown us thats slightly slower.
As for design we simply have a small fast loading page that says choose between flash and XHTML versions, both keep a similar look but the XHTML lacks the transition effects amd value-added features of the flash one.
Was relatively easy actionscript wise once we had worked out the relative path and level issues. On area which caused a problem as gwetting flash to remember and pass data across the various movies held in a centralised clip.
The second one was much easier :-)
