is a negative text-indent considered cloaking?

views:

294

answers:

+7 Q:

is a negative text-indent considered cloaking?

I am using the negative-text-indent technique I learned to show a text-image to the user, while hiding the corresponding actual text.

This way the user sees the fancy styled text while search engines can still index it.

However I am started to think this sounds like cloaking since I am serving different content to the user vs the spider. However, I am not using this in a deceitful way. Plus it seems like this is a popular technique.

So is it SEO-safe or is it cloaking?

Thanks!

+11 A:

No, this is not cloaking. From what I can tell, you are not actually serving different content, based on whether (you think) the client is a crawler. The content you are serving is just interpreted differently by browsers than by a spider. If you are actually serving different content, why are you doing this?

I'd even go as far as say that it is good accessibility practice. Screen readers will still pick up on the hidden text, text browsers will show it normally, etcetera.

Thomas 2010-04-01 15:29:22

In terms of accessibility this is a *bad* move: With images off and CSS (a common setting for slow networks) on the reader sees nothing.

toscho 2010-04-01 15:50:11

@toscho, whenever I disable all images and css... I can see the text just fine. Don't have a screen reader to test on tho.

John Isaacks 2010-04-01 15:56:20

@toscho: Good point! However, is this technique any worse than other image replacement techniques in that respect? @John: the point was: images *off*, CSS *on*.

Thomas 2010-04-01 16:01:46

Ohh Ok, I understand now. And thanks, That is a good point I never considered.

John Isaacks 2010-04-01 16:23:37

@Thomas I’m not sure if there are really robust replacement techniques. Another point is keyboard navigation: Most modern browsers allow their user to tab through *all* elements. From my own experience I know how annoying an invisible focus is … I don’t think, that this problem can be solved.If it really matters, I’d go with @font-face. This is always accessible and requires much less hacking.

toscho 2010-04-01 18:01:00

+3 A:

No, this is not cloaking. I think the key phrase in Google's definition is:

If the file that Googlebot sees is not identical to the file that a typical user sees, then you're in a high-risk category.

You're not serving a different file - the content of the file served to GoogleBot is exactly the same as the content of the file served to users.

Dexter 2010-04-01 15:32:00

+1 A:

Thomas is right - this is not cloaking. CResult's quoted text implies that Cloaking is serving a different files for crawlers and users. Meaning, for the context of crawling, Content = File. Thus, if you serve the exact same file, you are not Cloaking anything.

It doesn't matter if you serve off-screen text. It doesn't matter how the content is presented to the user. It doesn't matter what is inside the file.

M.A. Hanin 2010-04-01 15:37:13

Great thanks, now I have a better understanding on the definition of "cloaking"

John Isaacks 2010-04-01 15:58:15

+1 A:

This is NOT cloaking. I use image replacement techniques all the time. It makes sense in the fact it's more accessible. If the text reads what an image says then that's fine. It is functional to the image. If however, you're cloaking a description of the image that is not otherwise on the image anyway, I'd be concerned about that. It's fine to replace things that read the same. I do use ALT text, but sometimes I'd rather have the image as a background on text and indent it off screen. It meets the same requirements.

Michael 2010-04-01 16:23:33

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

is a negative text-indent considered cloaking?

related questions