Text-align: -900% in an absolute element?
-
I'm having a hard time doing image replacement in an absolute element. I know there is a replacement technique which is ideal for this but the text is larger then the window so when the image is shown over the text, a part would still be visible.
Could anyone help me any further?
-
I use fixed and absolute so the box won't move when i scroll my browser.
I also tested in Safari and Firefox and works just fine, it's IE which is bugging me.
-
You are not going to like this, but your code work in Safari and Firefox.
try using -900px instead of -900**%**
I also removed the position: fixed and position: absolute. What are you doing with these? I do not see where they are needed.
-
-
*** Again, sorry about the late response. I am moving, so please don't expect anything back until Thursday night ***
Please provide the CSS snippet for this. I see you are running a WP and have a few CSS files. I do not have time to search all of them to find the corresponding code.
I will look at this and get back to you.
-
I'll give you the example, this is my test website:
http://www.computerworkstationdeskguide.com
I run my theme there to make sure i get everything right before publishing to my main one. If you go to a single post, you'll notice the sidebar on the left. That's where the problem lies. It shows nice verywhere, but in IE (and maybe not just in IE, i don't know) it still shows the text.
-
Let's start over. Why do you want an absolute position on this element? It should be positioned at the point where the text starts.
-
That looks pretty much like i did it. It always works, just not for the absolute element. It is because it is a share box for facebook, twitter, etc. I've seen many options to make it go with the browser but obviously positioning it absolute is the best way.
It seems so hard to find a solution for this
-
Yes, I understand that
But why then are you using absolute positioning?
Oh, and you are doing a text-indent at -9999px correct?
.swap-image {
text-indent: -9999px;
background:url(path-to-image) top left no-repeat;
min-height: 40px;
}
-
I'm not trying to. Using text-indent on the text and then using an image-background on the div is a common way of image replacement.
-
why are you using absolute position on the image? if you want to move it around the div, use padding.
-
Well yes, i use text text-align in a negative way so the text goes of the page, then i use a background-image to replace it. But it seems like text-indent is incompatible with an absolute position, so i'm looking for a better way to do the image replacement or a workaround for IE.
-
I don't think you have this correct. What this does is to set text to a negative which sends it off the page, however, the div contains an image. So the image shows, but the text does not (to the user).
This is often done with first letters of a paragraph to change to a unique font.
but let us start with what are you trying to do
-
I've seen text-indent: -9999px in css all over the web. Perhaps this is the code you are looking for?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
How does ARIA-hidden text appear to search engines
I'm having trouble getting my accessibility team to add alt text to our site's images for SEO benefits as they feel some of it would add additional noise for screen readers. They proposed using ARIA-hidden attributes to hide the text but I'm wondering if will that be interpreted as a cloaking tactic to search engines? Also, I'm wondering if it the alt text will carry the same weight if ARIA-hidden is used. Has anyone had any experience with this? I'm having trouble finding any research on the topic.
Web Design | | KJ6001 -
How important is anchor text in your sitemap?
I've read in a few recent articles that using keyword anchor text in your HTML sitemap is a good idea i.e. important. How important do you think it is? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Example 1: Widgets: View All Colors: Red | Blue | Green | Yellow | Orange | Purple Types: Oversized | Large | Small | Miniature Example 2: Widgets: View All Widgets Colors: Red Widgets | Blue Widgets | Green Widgets | Yellow Widgets | Orange Widgets | Purple Widgets Types: Oversized Widgets | Large Widgets | Small Widgets | Miniature Widgets
Web Design | | Choice0 -
How do elements that are displayed when scrolled impact SEO?
Hi, We are wanting to implement Animate.css and Wowjs on our site and were concerned about the SEO impacts. Basically when the page is loaded, if the element is not within the viewport then the HTML tag (i.e. div tag) have a style="visibility: hidden" and once the element is within the viewport it will change to have style="visibility: visible". Would having the style="visibility: hidden" negatively impact SEO?
Web Design | | KendallHershey0 -
Multiple sites using same text - how to avoid Google duplicate content penalty?
Hi Mozers, my client located in Colorado is opening a similar (but not identical) clinic in California. Will Google penalize the new California site if we use text from our website that features his Colorado office? He runs the clinic in CO and will be a partner of the clinic in CA, so the CA clinic has his "permission" to use his original text. Eventually he hopes to go national, with multiple sites utilizing essentially the same text. Will Google penalize the new CA site for plagiarism and/or duplicate content? Or is there a way to tell Google, "hey Google, this new clinic is not ripping off my text"?
Web Design | | CalamityJane770 -
Organization name as text vs. as a picture with alt text + Schema.org markup
I'm looking for some feedback to implement best practice for the markup of our header/navigation at the top of our site. Our organization name and a tag line is at the top of every page on the left, then our logo, then our navigation to items like "Topics" "FAQs" "About us" etc is to the right along the top. Our organization name includes the most frequently searched keyword for what we want to rank on, and our organization name is our domain name. A couple other background items: we're a non-profit startup and no code is public yet -- hence, I'll be explaining what we're going for. We're coding in straight html/css, not using Wordpress or anything like that. When we originally DIY coded our draft homepage and a few landing pages, we put the organization name and tag line into the markup as text, to look like this: Organization name | Pretty | Navigation items over here
Web Design | | scienceisrad
Explanatory fun tag line | Cool |
--------------------------------------- | Logo | --------------------------------------------------------- Then we outsourced the markup of two more landing pages to a company that does on-demand orders for responsive markup, based on png's we sent of the designs. The company's code renders a fabulous looking version of our design, and important for usability, it is responsive. The company also did something else I'm not so sure of. They made one big image out of our organization name, tag line and logo ... because? The indenting and different font sizes of the Organization name and tag line was too hard to code in? Or is it just best practice for html standards, SEO, etc. to make it one big logo?? Now, as part of an overall effort I'm working on to reconcile our different code ... I'm mulling right now specifically on reconciling the different approaches we each took and incorporating new best practices for the header ... based on what I'm reading online about headers, including debates about whether to use h1 for your company name, whether using an image for the name is fine, advice about including Schema.org markup for logos, etc. Given all this, which of these two options look better to you? Do they seem equally good to you? What would you change about the one that looks better to you? What do I have wrong in them? Or would you code this entirely differently to hit all best practices? What do you think about using h1 for organization name vs. is there a better tag to use for the organization name to code it in as text? (Note: we have other h1's on our pages for the actual article/content titles of each page, which maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't be having those as h1's?) Option 1 -- using text for our name and tag line: <header id="top" class="brandfont brandcolor">
[# Organization name Explanatory fun tag line](/) Organization name logo {navigation code here}
</header> Option 2 -- name, tag line and logo all as one big png image: <header id="header" class="container"> Organization name tag line {navigation code here}
</header>1 -
Google text-only vs rendered (index and ranking)
Hello, can someone please help answer a question about missing elements from Google's text-only cached version.
Web Design | | cpawsgo
When using JavaScript to display an element which is initially styled with display:none, does Google index (and most importantly properly rank) the elements contents? Using Google's "cache:" prefix followed by our pages url we can see the rendered cached page. The contents of the element in question are viewable and you can read the information inside. However, if you click the "Text-only version" link on the top-right of Google’s cached page, the element is missing and cannot be seen. The reason for this is because the element is initially styled with display:none and then JavaScript is used to display the text once some logic is applied. Doing a long-tail Google search for a few sentences from inside the element does find the page in the results, but I am not certain that is it being cached and ranked optimally... would updating the logic so that all the contents are not made visible by JavaScript improve our ranking or can we assume that since Google does return the page in its results that everything is proper? Thank you!0 -
Is it cloaking/hiding text if textual content is no longer accessible for mobile visitors on responsive webpages?
My company is implementing a responsive design for our website to better serve our mobile customers. However, when I reviewed the wireframes of the work our development company is doing, it became clear to me that, for many of our pages, large parts of the textual content on the page, and most of our sidebar links, would no longer be accessible to a visitor using a mobile device. The content will still be indexable, but hidden from users using media queries. There would be no access point for a user to view much of the content on the page that's making it rank. This is not my understanding of best practices around responsive design. My interpretation of Google's guidelines on responsive design is that all of the content is served to both users and search engines, but displayed in a more accessible way to a user depending on their mobile device. For example, Wikipedia pages have introductory content, but hide most of the detailed info in tabs. All of the information is still there and accessible to a user...but you don't have to scroll through as much to get to what you want. To me, what our development company is proposing fits the definition of cloaking and/or hiding text and links - we'd be making available different content to search engines than users, and it seems to me that there's considerable risk to their interpretation of responsive design. I'm wondering what other people in the Moz community think about this - and whether anyone out there has any experience to share about inaccessable content on responsive webpages, and the SEO impact of this. Thank you!
Web Design | | mmewdell0 -
Legitimate hidden text and H1s are "OK?" Show me the data!
I'm trying to promote the SEO perspective during a site redesign so I'm researching the impact of design requests: Embedding text in graphic headers and applying to the graphics to get the SEO value Reducing view-able text on a page for design reasons and by using JavaScript to hide text in accordions or tabs. SEOmoz uses these techniques on their ranking report and most of what I read in teh forums says it is OK to hide text if your motives are pure and the text displays in a text-only browser. But I do SEO, not SEOK. I want to optimize, not just avoid penalties. And I try to make decisions based on data, not just anecdotes. Are there any studies out there on the effects these hidden-text topics? How much difference DOES it make to have the text exposed? Since there is potential for spam with these techniques, why would Google give the same rank to pages with and without hidden text? When I'm balancing UX and SEO, I want to clearly define the trade-off. What have you done when faced with this dilemma?
Web Design | | integra-telecom0