2010-10-26, 09:07:40
Well, this is very simple GS theme - without external CSS, inline style, table and flexible layout. The old style HTML.
http://get-simple.info/extend/theme/staseo/48/
http://get-simple.info/extend/theme/staseo/48/
Zegnåt Wrote:Interesting, though I would never use it. (And wouldn’t advice others to use it either.)
From a SEO point of view, very little has been changed from the default theme.
However, other points have been hurt. The way you added style to the elements does not validate as XHTML and never has. If you’re planning to use “old style HTML†change your theme to HTML.
It’s flexible, that sounds like an accessibility pro. But in reality you’re hurting accessibility. Mediawiki has a point against tables for presentation. Somewhat more opinionated (but valid) points about this use of tables has also been featured by WordPress Freelancer.
staseo Wrote:Try to check this theme with Firefox, Opera, IE etc. try to see it via IE6! I think, that the 4–5.5 will work too. Even browsers without CSS support, will show the site in good way (try 2 disable CSS on Firefox).Sure, I didn’t say anything about that either. However Internet Explorer 3 supported CSS already, and since you’re mostly just setting colours you could’ve used CSS and still be compatible with all IE starting with version 3.
Apple Inc. Wrote:As you navigate each table cell, VoiceOver speaks the column heading and cell contents, followed by the row and column numbers, such as “row three, column one.â€Â
staseo Wrote:Yes, the theme is flexible- width and height, fits the size of your screen.BY the way, try to render it with small screen, like mobile.Did you try this? Most modern mobile webbrowsers use the WebKit engine and work completely with normal flexible-width CSS. You will need to test older mobile browsers.
staseo Wrote:The little difference is: the crawler or what ever, can calculate the relative position (and distance) of the headings, content and menu—this parameter helps to understand, which part of your site is more important, than other.Do you have any articles on this or is it really just your opinion? I thought crawlers used source order to assign importance. First thing in the source gets most importance and it goes down from their. Source order is more easily controlled with CSS than tables.
Harvey Kane Wrote:Good source code will have the page content as clost to the top of the HTML document as possible, and the least important elements such as sidebars and footers last.(Quote from the SEO Checklist on SEO blog RagePank.)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
Seybold Wrote:Reducing the ratio of code to content, using keywords in your header tags, and replacing header GIFs with actual text will all help your sites get better search engine results.(Quote from Seybold’s Google is blind.)
Robbo Wrote:Google is most interested in the value of the indexable content on your site and its relevance to specific search queries taking account of all factors, including geolocation.(Quote from a reply on Google’s Webmaster Central.)
Google is not interested in whether you use tables or CSS or both or neither.
Robbo Wrote:Googlebot makes its best attempt to get at the indexable content on the page and discard all the overhead coding that does not affect the relevance to what people are looking for.(Quote from a reply on Google’s Webmaster Central.)
Serge Bondar Wrote:The leading search engines differ considerably in terms of the the amount of page text they’re able to crawl. For Yahoo!, the limit is 210KB; for Google, 520KB; and for MSN, it’s 1030KB. Pages smaller than these sizes are indexed fully, while any text that extends beyond those limits will not be indexed.Web pages written with tables usually have more HTML, meaning that you’re wasting a lot of the bytes on HTML tags and are going to lose out on the amount of text that is being indexed.
JohnMu Wrote:There is most likely still a point where search engines say “enough is enough†and stop picking up the rest of the content on a page.
Amit Singhal and Matt Cutts Wrote:Like us, our users place a lot of value in speed—that’s why we’ve decided to take site speed into account in our search rankings.Exactly what Google sees as speed nobody knows. If it’s just file size than you will only be penalised a little, if it is render speed your tables are going to lose you a lot of points.
Konrad Rudolph Wrote:The layout algorithm for tables is much harder, the browser often has to wait for the whole table to load before it can begin to layout the content. Additionally, caching of the layout won’t work (CSS can easily be cached).(Quote from an answer to “Why not use tables for layout in HTML?†on Stack Overflow.)
Oleg06 Wrote:it's really funny article and in Russia, thank God, IE is gradually disappearing
staseo Wrote:Until Microsoft will sell Windows, the IE will still be there… as default browserMicrosoft is not allowed to have Internet Explorer as a forced standard with Windows in Europe. They must, thanks to our weird laws, offer you Opera/Firefox/etc as alternatives when you first start Windows.