Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> __/ [John Bokma] on Monday 24 October 2005 09:11 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not too sure about the use of the term "cloaking" though. It
>>> is com- monly mentioned when different content is delivered to
>>> different
>>> agents, e.g. fool engines by serving them with pages containing
>>> senseless content with targetted keyword at high density.
>>
>> One could generalize it to presenting data different to the visitor
>> compared to the bot. And of course there is a thin line, like "skip
>> content "
It's late here, and I am not sure if that's the right name: I mean a
jump to the main story link.
>> links that are moved -5000 pixels, but do have a function
>> in screen readers for example.
>
>
> That possibly falls under the same category though. If I recall
> correctly, Matt Mullenweg used a very significant horizontal offset
> (6000?) rather than use the visibility attribute.
yup, like the -5000 i mentioned.
> I guess the real
> test must be: is the crawler, which is intended to index information
> for humans, getting a perception that is identical to that of a human?
A human using a visual browser, a screen reader, or lynx?
> I suppose one could defend your example.
Yes, the reason is that people who use a visual browser hardly need a
"jump to the main story" link, but people using a screen reader now and
then prefer such a link. They not always like to hear the entire
breadcrumb tail read aloud :-)
> You could always argue that
> your visitors are hardware-savvy and have a high-resolution
> quadruple-headed (4-across) display each...
>
> http://www.9xmedia.com/Pages-Downloads/2000-Backgrounds.html
>
> I have never gone beyond two although I've used that setting since I
> was 19.
Reminds me of a nice story when I was working with a bleeding edge
technology (or something like that) Linux supporting company in
Auckland. I had over 25 windows open most of the time, so I requested a
dual head. The boss went out the next day (imagine) to go to a dirt
cheap shop that had some graphics cards which got rescued from a fire
(they smelled like that anyway).
So I got my second graphics card.
When I asked where the monitor was: You said nothing about a monitor,
you wanted an extra graphics card...
One of my co-workers: and how is he going to see the image? By
connecting the card to his head?
Realllly funny since I clearly explained at the meeting that my screen
estate was too small to be workable.
I really didn't like their attidude of saving on every little thing
(like buying 7 fans instead of an airco), except the stuff of the big
oompahs.
--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/
|
|
