Forum Moderators: open
Is this peripheral to Google's serps or a core to keeping it in 1st place?
And there's a better chance developers won't see it as a hammer and ultimately all tasks as a nail, but rather treat it as a file-format to show vectors and animations within otherwise HTML-based pages.
For the time being, Google should treat Flash content just like any other proprietary binary plug-in format; pretty much ignore it and spider only the HTML/text-content.
I truly can't think of a single Flash-based site on the WWW that I find helpful, interesting, easy-to-use, up-to-date, etc. The only reasonable use of Flash are games, animations/ vector-based movies... but if used for website text or navigation, it's a sign of complete misunderstanding of what the Web is about, and what visitors want.
Mostly, I just get rid of the Flash-plugin (and I switch off GIF animations), because I find blinking and moving stuff on a webpage to distract me when reading.
Can you please elaborate on this and better define it:
The question is ATW can read flash, but Google can't or doesn't want to.
So - do you mean that a 100% flash site - with no HTML - can be indexed by ATW? That ATW can interpret the pictures as words?
Can you post an example of a site indexed by ATW this way? Where the words it ranks for aren't in anchor text of links pointing to the site, aren't on the page in html, and aren't in a directory description or metatag?
Google can 'index' a 100% flash site - and it will rank for terms in the anchor text of links pointing to the site, terms on the page in html, and terms in a directory description (DMOZ) or metatag or title.
eg try the search for flash games
Look at the cache for the site called ori5inal Look at the code for the page. Then look at how ATW indexed it.
But Google wont index the words - which appear as pictures, in the flash movie. At least - thats my belief. There are some 'alt tag' like features in MX for accessibility - but I have no idea whether they get indexed.
Word and acrobat are primarily text based file formats. But if you put your site's navigation inside a pdf file - I suspect you'd have trouble getting it to rank.
You're talking about the Macromedia Search Engine SDK [macromedia.com], which in theory helps search engines "index" the content. What it does is extracts the text and links and creates an alternate html file (cloaking, anyone?).
mat_bastian posted a link [webmasterworld.com] to this article [actionscript.com] (by him) in which he discusses Macromedia's SDK. Interestingly, Matt Cutts from Google claims that they can extract 50% more links from a flash file by using their own internally developed methods, than by using Macromedia's technology- which underlines the sorry state of Macromedia's Search Engine SDK, which is what FAST is using.
The problem is not with the search engines, it's with Macromedia's technology.
What about from a user's perspective? Richness of serps.
That's a good question that GoogleGuy addressed in his ten questions post. Although he didn't specifically address flash sites, he was addressing the question of sites developed by folks whose heads were in the sand in regard to search engines when they initially developed their sites.
Lots of web designers don’t think about how search engines will see a site... I think one of search engines' big jobs will be indexing a site intelligently even if the site wasn’t designed with search engines in mind.
[edited by: martinibuster at 12:06 am (utc) on June 15, 2003]
When I did it, it only matched a single page, which was in fact a .swf file. NOT an HTML page, an actual Flash application file. Those words appear in the text of the Flash app.
The thing is that text entered into Flash generally remains in a kind of text format, rather than getting converted to a "picture" of the text. Presumably this is why ATW can index Flash files. Clear now?
I'm aware this thread is about Google issues. However, I think is convenient to mention another big player. Inktomi indexes PDF, XLS and DOC. [search.positiontech.com...]
Now it's important to mention W3's perspective.
"W3C defines the Web as the universe of network-accessible information." "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." [w3.org...]
I think a major reason not to index 100% Flash sites is the accesibility issues related to users with physical disabilities.
Also Flash doesn't fit with another W3 perspective: "People currently share their knowledge on the Web in language intended for other people. On the Semantic Web ("semantic" means "having to do with meaning"), we will be able to express ourselves in terms that our computers can interpret and exchange. By doing so, we will enable them to solve problems that we find tedious, to help us find quickly what we're looking for: medical information, a movie review, a book purchase order, etc."
In order to get my e-learning content available to searchers I have had to remove the text from my Flash files and place it as HTML alongside the graphical animation. This has several problems. Users cannot interact with the text and have it influence the Flash movie. i.e. I can't create hyperlinks in the text that would jump around bits of the movie (I'm sure there are ways around this but none of them simple for a non-programmer).
It also throws up problems when importing into other Learning Management Systems. Its very easy to create a SCORM compliant Flash movie on its own (save as SCORM compliant) and that one file could contain an entire module that can be ported around to several LMSs. If the text is separate I have to recreate the whole module for each new LMS. This makes distribution of e-learning modules very problematic.
I don't think that those creating Flash e-learning think too much about SEO as most of them are non-profit and university based but if google started to search Flash content I'm sure a lot of useful e-learning courses would start become more widely recognised.
"Who wouldn't like more interactivity and richer media on the Web, including resizable images, quality sound, video, 3D effects, and animation? W3C's consensus process does not limit content provider creativity or mean boring browsing. Through its membership, W3C listens to end-users and works toward providing a solid framework for the development of the Cooler Web through languages such as the Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) language and the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL)."
"The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) creates Web standards. W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential, which it does by developing technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) that will create a forum for information, commerce, inspiration, independent thought, and collective understanding." [w3.org...]
In the meantime, "Think about keeping things simple, because everything is about to change. Take your complex HTML documents and make them modularized. Use CSS, or XSL, or modularized script. Even if you don't jump on the bandwagon of the latest and greatest craze, such as XHTML, you'll find it much easier and less time-consuming to make modifications to your HTML files." [msdn.microsoft.com...]
[edited by: zafile at 5:27 pm (utc) on June 15, 2003]
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 "Many non-W3C formats (e.g., PDF, Shockwave, etc.) require viewing with either plug-ins or stand-alone applications. Often, these formats cannot be viewed or navigated with standard user agents (including assistive technologies). Avoiding non-W3C and non-standard features (proprietary elements, attributes, properties, and extensions) will tend to make pages more accessible to more people using a wider variety of hardware and software. When inaccessible technologies (proprietary or not) must be used, equivalent accessible pages must be provided."
"Even when W3C technologies are used, they must be used in accordance with accessibility guidelines. When using new technologies, ensure that they transform gracefully." [w3.org...]
"Providing alternative images. It is possible to determine (via Javascript) if the user has installed the Flash plug-in, and provide an alternative image if they have not. The following code is derived from code that was automatically generated by Flash 4. It is modified to merely trigger on the presence of the Flash plug-in." Non-W3C Technologies Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
[w3.org...]
Being a proprietary format is not a very effective argument against spidering and indexing swf.
swf is a valid and and very heavily used file format for the distribution of information on the web, much like and often more effectively integrated IMO than pdf (which is proprietary and indexed). I believe swf is an open source format anyway so that argument is completely invalid. Macromedia simply broadened the base for potential uses for the file format.
Those who argue that swf is soley intended for distribution of vector graphics are off base. Since when does the technology define itself. Lending definition to an object is the responsibility of its users not its creator.
Those arguing against the value of swf as a means of information transfer based on the assertion that flash movies offer nothing but trivial entertainment and lends itself to excessive artistic license being taken buy developers are ill informed indeed. Flash and its usage have matured far beyond the skewed impression driven at by many on this site.
The question is not should they index and spider. They should. The real dilemma is "who does the onus lie with to make it so?".
I really feel it is a lack of effective marketing on behalf of Macromedia to the major engines. It is a fault of under informed flash developers for not really knowing they need to pressure Macromedia and the likes of Google to come to a viable solution. It is the fault of those who promote cloaking as a solution for the flash indexing problem when in reality, any solution which risks banishment from the highway that provides 80% of all search traffic is not a solution. At best (and that is a stretch) it's a bandaid. It is the problem of Macromedia not improving upon or scrapping the MM Search Engine SDK which is buy all accounts an inferior product. And it's the result of ignorant consumers who often don't even realize they are missing out on a lot of good information built within the construct of a widely used and effective means of information transference for the more visually oriented web user.
Everyone is failing on some level, but ultimately I blame Macromedia for not making a stronger push towards making the swf an effective vehical for e-commerce. For not standing behind it's developers who have hitched their wagons to - on almost all levels from development to usability - a very quality product.
I think the onus is mostly on Macromedia, not necessarily Google.
Advanced search filter on Google includes :
pdf, ps, doc, xls, ppt, rtf - (Microsoft Word, Excel, and Powerpoint - hmm.... Excel and Powerpoint - you are more worthy to be included in the serps - well done)
Advanced search filter on ATW includes :
pdf, swf, doc.
"'If the Web becomes dependent on closed standards, be they Flash or RealAudio or Windows Media Player, then it becomes difficult for new browsers to be created, it becomes difficult to place the Web in embedded appliances, it becomes difficult to have any experience outside what those companies define,' said Bruce Perens, a co-founder of the Open Source Initiative." [news.com.com...]
"Macromedia acknowledges there have been problems with how Flash has been applied. But the company staunchly defends its product, saying any faults with Flash lie with bad Web design rather than bad technology."
"Jakob Nielsen, an early Internet design guru, wrote a report late last year [2000] that lambasted Flash as '99 percent bad' because of its tendency to discourage Web site use. Specifically, he wrote that Flash makes bad design more likely and breaks with the Web's fundamental interaction style."
"'People don't want to sit and be entertained on the Web--that's what television is for,' Nielsen said. 'Flash is mainly viewed as being an annoyance that gets in the way of what you really want to do on the Web, which is get information.'" [news.com.com...]
"On June 3, 2002, we announced a strategic partnership between Macromedia and Nielsen Norman Group to improve Flash usability: we will develop the usability guidelines for Internet-based applications in Flash MX.
The version of Flash introduced in 2002 (Flash MX) has solved many of the technical usability problems in previous versions of Flash. Among other things, Flash MX supports accessibility and the "Back" button in the browser. A very important usability improvement is that Flash now ships with a standard set of interaction controls: finally, no more random scroll bars made up at the whim of a Flash designer...."
[useit.com...]
It's a good approach to share those pages with the rest of the World via Google.
Remember to add <meta name="robots"
content="noindex,nofollow"> tags to the Flash pages so the equivalent accessible pages will not run the risk of being penalized.
That aside, I have a question. Suppose I build a "100% Flash site" which happens to contain several "pages" of textual content. I use JavaScript to detect the Flash player. I build a text-only version of the Flash site (for people without the player) and also put its homepage content inside NOSCRIPT tags on the main Flash-containing index page. I've done this for genuine usablity reasons (people not using JavaScript) but there is the added benefit in providing HTML content that can be spidered. Is this cloaking? There probably isn't a straight answer in terms of exactly how would Google see it, but I would be interested in what people feel here, as an alternative strategy to waiting/hoping Google will start to read text inside Flash.
For example, the reasons you give for using Flash:
...preloader bargraph - Why bother, when the overall effect will most likely be to increase the bandwidth requirements and slow down the overall user experience?
...cheap development - Not usually the case and not a good reason, IMO.
...easy for non-programmer - Maybe, but not a good reason, IMO.
...show confidence in it - Needless to say, not a very good reason.
...certain effects that can only be done in Flash - I strongly agree with this one, as long as we're not talking about vacuous bells and whistles.
Here some links about the main security holes:
[pcworld.com ], [securiteam.com ] and
[pcworld.com ].
Also read this one
[accountancyage.com ], especially the last paragraph.
mat_bastian: Can you see? Well, tell a blind person that Flash is great technology, what do you think the answer would be...
I used to work in Australia for a government department that dealt amongst other things with accessibility issues of websites. And it really opened my eyes that not everyone can see, but still surf the web! And about the myth that Flash MX solves accessibility problems: No, it does not!
Oh, and I still have to see a flash page that could not have been done with DHTML. Sure, more work, more learning involved, but if you really want it! It becomes more accessible and will be indexed to its fullest!
Flash: Killer to the blind and search engines!
Java applets: same!
And that's exactly why the WAI tells you to provide alternative content if you really can't live without Flash.
Mozart
This is NOT just a flash issue.
Guidelines include :
1. Text equivalent for all images and multimedia content
2. No frames!
3. Minimum 14pt text
4. Ensure text and graphics are understandable without colour
5. etc.,
My statement infers that there are some very good flash sites around - just like there are some very poorly created html only sites. The converse is also true!
The main question remains - the very good flash sites cannot be read whilst the very poorly created html only sites can be.
Would the ability to read flash files add to the richness of the serps results?
Would the ability to read flash files add to the richness of the serps results?
In principle I believe it would, otherwise a large number of excellent sites are less accessible than otherwise they would be. Flash content can be made just as presentable as HTML content, so why not? However, the designer would need to be aware of how a spider would read the text within the swf file, assuming it can be read in a structured way. Presumably it's not like it would simply read the code from the top down as it would with HTML, and weight the tags etc. So this could be quite difficult to do, I imagine, given the complex internal structure that can easily exist in a FLA. And the same kind of measures that Google has in place to reduce spamming would need to exist for Flash. So a guarded yes from me.
(A more guarded yes than my first one)
It could give everyone 90 days notice - either comply with the standards - or not.
Now - wouldn't that make the web a better place for everyone (including the visually impaired)?
Maybe then - at least - people would actually read the checkpoint guidelines [w3.org...]
Hey - I've got a better idea - why doesn't google just PR0 all sites which fail to comply with a minimum accessibility standard - say Priority one of the W3C Web Content accessibiliy guidelines.?
Of course, everyone who creates web sites should have read these guidelines. On the other hand, I think it's not Google's task to play the referee. If Google would penalize for this, I would use other search egines, because I know there are a lot of good (and unique) web sites which would be penalized. (As a user, I'm interested in finding information. If these information are only available in a swf file (or doc, PDF, PostScript or whatever), I would prefer to decide by my own if I want see them or or, respectively, which kind of source I want to see.)
Also, even if Flash files are not included in the default search, I think it would be nice if they were included in Gloole's index. (You can give text within a Flash file less weight in the ranking algorithm compared to normal HTML text. And you can exclude Flash files from the default search.)
Nice thought but it'd not a perfect world. I know of plenty of voluntary organisations from brass bands to round table organisations which create their own sites, have a great deal of value to add to the web, and the "user", and if included in serps would add to the richness of the results.
Hey - I've got a better idea - why doesn't google just PR0 all sites which fail to comply with a minimum accessibility standard - say Priority one of the W3C Web Content accessibiliy guidelines.?
Maybe you can educate me a little. I've looked at the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Which aspect of the guidelines can Flash not comply with?
And how do you weight this text then? By font size? Flash does not have a logical "structure" as in this is a heading, this is emphasised, this is normal body text. Same as with PDFs. They do get deciphered (sometimes) as text, but with no weighting as to importance.
Next point: If Google does extract the hrefs out of .swfs then I think this is already a great feat. And in line with Google's idea that a link is a vote cast for another resource.
Can .swfs be found? Yes, they can. Imagine 50 links to flashpage.html with the link text "look at this educational widget! I never saw widgets explained so well!". I am sure the page with the .swf embedded can be found now. In addition, nobody stops the author to describe the application in words on the page itself, together with instructions if needed. So, flash is already in the serps, if the author has bothered to overcome flash's (not Google's) inherent problems.
Patrick, you are asking why flash isn't really that accessible. Take your favourite flashh app, start it up, write down all the words you see without clicking anywhere that is not a word, ignore any rollovers and sounds that indicate to you that this is a button to click. Now have a look at the text you wrote down. Should Google find this? In case you have not noticed yet: Google is like a blind surfer!
I think Google is doing a great job in indexing all links to Flash files and extracting links from them. A very good flash site will be found - if indeed it is that good!
: )
Whilst I totally agree that Google shouldn't have to be the W3C web police, what is the difference between say architects and web designers? Real world 'shopfitters' and 'bricks and mortar' builders V 'e-commerce' web designers.
Here in Australia - the legal precedent is already set. There is no difference. The same legislation actually applies to a business on line - just as it does 'offline' - in terms of accessibility.
My point? Most web designers don't even know what the law requires of them - most architects study it as part of their formal qualifications - and get sued if they fail to meet the standards.
Patrick - you are on the right track - autodetection of browser capability/functionality, and then degrading elegantly are the 'work around' - ie work out what the user agent is/ has, and supply appropriate content - where the content you 'first' provide is inaccessible. For flash - or graphic/multimedia based technology - you can start here:
[w3.org...] and look particularly at 1.2 1.3 1.4 etc.
What several of us have been trying to say is - one of the major issues with 100% flash websites - is that you have to provide workarounds for 'everyone else' - including search engines and the disabled, in order to comply. I actually said, in post 11- - about 40 something posts back in this thread
used appropriately - flash is a great technology, and can be an important part of a well designed informative site
And as someone else said - if Macromedia doesn't even have a 100% flash website.....
Brilliant idea. Unfortunately, it would make Google worthless. Still, in a perfect world...
<added>Maybe Google could add a sort-by function to the engine so people could search only accessible sites. That'd be great.
>>http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&q=%22surroundings+looked+hopeless%22
jomaxx, you've proven to the readers that Alltheweb will index the text in flash files. Thanks.
Unfortunately, you've also demonstrated why it's not a good idea. If you actually visit the site that contains that flash file, you'll see that the designer intended for the file to be imbedded in a context. Without the context, the flash file is kind of useless to a visitor. It would be better in this case if Alltheweb didn't index the flash file.</added>
