Forum Moderators: phranque
But they have a tendency to create upscale sites that use too many graphical links. You know-- glitzy rollover effects or using that fancy font that's not resident in most users' computers. As some of you know, many clients expect this type of site.
Or, when there are a ton of categories they may resort to javascript or XML drop-down menus.
I'd like some confirmation on what I'm preaching:
Textual links are best. But if you absolutely have to use graphical links or javascript drop down menus, you'd better also have textual links as backups. Say in a footer and which contain targeted keywords.
I concede that, if the customer adamantly wants fancy graphical links, then the additional textual footer method is almost as good as textual links alone. Not as good as textual only, but almost as good.
In your experience, is that true? Is there a significant difference between text only vs. this combination of graphical/textual, or javascript/xml drop down menus plus textual lnks?
Using background images you can apply roll over effects to text links.
Unordered lists can be made into drop down menus.
As a quick fix when SEOing a client's site that has graphical menus, would adding textual footer menus containing targeted search terms be as good as a textual MAIN menu?
vincevincevince:
I've started looking at sIFR-- thanks for the tip. It's new to me. Fascinating stuff. On first glance, however, it seems that the text is Flash based-- and therefore not spiderable. Am I wrong? Or would I have to include the actual text in the HTML source code somewhere to be available to spiders?
even with CSS, one would be restricted to using basic resident fonts. Correct?
You are restricted to that anyway basically unless you use graphics - and for a lot of links, that can mean a lot of buttons to download for the user.
even with CSS, one would be restricted to using basic resident fonts. Correct?
Yes.
edit: Beaten to it!
On first glance, however, it seems that the text is Flash based-- and therefore not spiderable. Am I wrong?
I'm particularly interested in whether adding an optimized textual footer menu to either of the latter will compensate for poor searchability.
And, is adding an optimized textual footer menu to either of the above style menus EQUAL TO a textual menu alone?
If we rated the types of menus for the best search engine rankings, would the following descending order be correct?
Textual menus with targeted keywords (TKs) in anchor text.
CSS textual menus with TKs in anchor text.
sIFR menus with TKs.
Graphical menus with TKs in ALT tags plus textual footer menu with TKs.
Graphical menus with TKs in ALT tags, no footer textual menu.
Flash menus.
Textual links are best
Best for whom? Best for search engine robots, maybe. But what about the readers of the sites?
If your readers want fancy menus, then give them fancy menus. If a search engine wants a menu let it use a sitemap (a simple text link at the bottom of the page leading to a dry, boring, text link map of the whole site).
But don't drive your users away just to pander to the search engine spiders.
Matt
Use text menus, but have Javascript make them invisible and make the image/flash/whatever menus visible.
Users who do not have Javascript (or have it disabled) or who have non-CSS browsers (or have style sheets turned off - perhaps because they have a disability) will see the text menus.
No need for a separate, space-wasting footer menu.
I think perhaps you are taking the wrong approach with your designers. Don't encourage them to make an SEO-friendly site. Encourage them to make an accessible site that can fall-back and work with the most basic browsers. This will automatically make the site SEO-friendly, as well as making it more disability-friendly and mobile-friendly.
I am amazed at the number of web sites that just plain don't work if you don't have all the browser features that the website demands. It isn't that hard to provide a fallback capability, but many just don't even try.
Our clients are in an extremely comptetitve business. They live and die by getting business via their web sites. Searching off page one, or even below the fold, can cost business.
They pay us money to get them to search well. If it comes to a choice between glitz and sales, I know which 9 out of 10 would choose.
OK; I'm a little slow on the uptake. Are you maintaining that the following two are equal in terms of searching well?
1) a graphical menu that links to the page /red-widgets.htm plus a footer link "sitemap" that links to a sitemap page. The sitemap page has a textual link that says "red widgets" and links to /red-widgets.htm
2) a textual only menu that says "red widgets" and links directly to /red-widgets.htm
If it's 1) then I'm totally, humbly disillusioned.
Where would I find a good discussion on "Use text menus, but have Javascript make them invisible and make the image/flash/whatever menus visible."
I have a lot to learn. Thanks.
