f



HTML Text and Photoshop Text

Hey Folks:

I thought it best to do title text in photoshop and bring into my
webpage for a better quality look.  But, using Composer, the HTML looks
pretty darn OK.

Thoughts?

0
gaycat56 (2)
11/22/2005 2:54:38 AM
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop 8034 articles. 0 followers. ronviers (102) is leader. Post Follow

19 Replies
1110 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

Composer? what is that..

I would much prefer using Adobe Photoshp for text titles.  Their
effects are nice & customizable & with CS2, you can do more with that.

0
kitakits
11/22/2005 4:01:25 PM
"Raoul" <gaycat56@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1132628078.236760.142570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Folks:
>
> I thought it best to do title text in photoshop and bring into my
> webpage for a better quality look.  But, using Composer, the HTML looks
> pretty darn OK.
>
> Thoughts?


Html text (using header tags like h1, h2, etc.) is much better for the 
search engines, plus it's resizable and therefore more accessible. Not to 
mention more easily updateable.

Flo 


0
Flo
11/22/2005 4:08:40 PM
Especially when it comes to search engines they rely on the meta tags
if not the actual text words to properly rank them into their engines.
Making the words into pictures won't help the search engine at all when
it comes crawling into your website nor that it will help you when it
comes to page ranking.

0
kitakits
11/22/2005 4:40:57 PM
On 11/22/05 10:08 AM, Flo Nelson commented:

> 
> "Raoul" <gaycat56@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1132628078.236760.142570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hey Folks:
>> 
>> I thought it best to do title text in photoshop and bring into my
>> webpage for a better quality look.  But, using Composer, the HTML looks
>> pretty darn OK.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Html text (using header tags like h1, h2, etc.) is much better for the
> search engines, plus it's resizable and therefore more accessible. Not to
> mention more easily updateable.

I understand that fewer engines are using meta tags and comments, but what
of image attributes like alt, title, longdesc (not applicable in this case)?

Also, while I understand that repetitive words/phrases help in rankings, you
may choose to balance that with design; this depends on the site, its
purpose and so on. 

Still, if he's just after a plain text title with no special effects or
illustrative aspects, there's no reason at all to make the text an image.
Just name a cross-platform selection of common fonts in your styles.


inez

0
iehsmith
11/22/2005 5:47:08 PM
In article <1132677657.350974.290890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "kitakits.com" <kitakits@gmail.com> wrote:

> Especially when it comes to search engines they rely on the meta tags
> if not the actual text words to properly rank them into their engines.

That was true once. It is not true any more.

Right now, not one of the major search engines even looks at meta tags; 
the meta tags are completely ignored.

Meta tags were a great idea, but they are no longer useful thanks to the 
flagrant abuse of unethical Webmasters. Many Webmasters began taking 
lists of the most popular search terms, like "britney spears" and 
"recipie" and "Coca-Cola," and putting them into their Meta tags even 
when the sites had nothing to do with any of those things in order to 
boost search engine results. The practice became so common that meta 
tags became worthless.

Google and Yahoo stopped looking at meta tags years ago. The other major 
search engines all followed suit very quickly thereafter. As of 2002, 
only Inktomi still looked at meta tags; now, nobody does any more. 
Today, meta tags bloat the size of your HTML files but add nothing.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
11/22/2005 9:04:13 PM
"I did mention Meta Tags and if NOT the actual words..." I find google
actually crawls all over the pages of your website and keeps copies of
it on their server making searching much faster.  Also that when you do
attach an image onto a website via HTML the ALT is still in words
discription.. making it searchable to the current search engines we
have today.

I even noticed that some website cheat by placing keywords on the
bottom of their page... "example:keyword keyword keyword keyword
keyword keyword keyword keyword keyword keyword keyword keyword"

Search engines I heard also programmed in such a way to minus the rank
of a cheating website based on what ever contents they have.. giving
its user relavent websites based on their search...

0
kitakits
11/22/2005 9:48:35 PM

tacit wrote:
> 
> In article <1132677657.350974.290890@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "kitakits.com" <kitakits@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Especially when it comes to search engines they rely on the meta tags
> > if not the actual text words to properly rank them into their engines.
> 
> That was true once. It is not true any more.
> 
> Right now, not one of the major search engines even looks at meta tags;
> the meta tags are completely ignored.
> 
> Meta tags were a great idea, but they are no longer useful thanks to the
> flagrant abuse of unethical Webmasters. Many Webmasters began taking
> lists of the most popular search terms, like "britney spears" and
> "recipie" and "Coca-Cola," and putting them into their Meta tags even
> when the sites had nothing to do with any of those things in order to
> boost search engine results. The practice became so common that meta
> tags became worthless.
> 
> Google and Yahoo stopped looking at meta tags years ago. The other major
> search engines all followed suit very quickly thereafter. As of 2002,
> only Inktomi still looked at meta tags; now, nobody does any more.
> Today, meta tags bloat the size of your HTML files but add nothing.

If search engines no longer rely on meta tags, what do they look at?

For a photography site dominated by galleries of images but with very
little text, how can the search engines be steered to (but not cheated
into) the site and images? Will adding titles and captions to the images
help?
0
photosonly
11/23/2005 1:37:50 PM
In article <43846FE1.1D01C1A9@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:

> If search engines no longer rely on meta tags, what do they look at?

They look at the words actually contained in the (visible) body of the 
HTML.

Google relies heavily on "page rank" to determine search engine results. 
Page rank is a measure of how many people link to you. The idea is that 
the more people who have Web sites that link to you, the more valuable 
and pertinent people find your Web page, so the higher it appears in a 
Google search. The best way to have a very high search engine result is 
to have a large number of Web sites that link to you.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
11/23/2005 1:49:42 PM
"tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:tacitr-37E419.08495423112005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com...
> In article <43846FE1.1D01C1A9@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:
>
>> If search engines no longer rely on meta tags, what do they look at?
>
> They look at the words actually contained in the (visible) body of the
> HTML.
>
> Google relies heavily on "page rank" to determine search engine results.
> Page rank is a measure of how many people link to you. The idea is that
> the more people who have Web sites that link to you, the more valuable
> and pertinent people find your Web page, so the higher it appears in a
> Google search. The best way to have a very high search engine result is
> to have a large number of Web sites that link to you.
>
> -- 


Search engine ranking is actually based on complex algorithms that take a 
lot of different factors into account  - metatags, page titles, headings, 
the text of the page, alt tags for images, number of hits you get, how many 
sites are linked to you (and what their rankings are). There are also checks 
for methods that try to spam the search engines - and the penalties are 
large for doing so.

For a photography site, I'd suggest a good description of the site and what 
is available on the home page -- and titles/captions certainly wouldn't 
hurt.

Flo



0
Flo
11/23/2005 4:34:36 PM
On 11/23/05 10:34 AM, Flo Nelson commented:

> For a photography site, I'd suggest a good description of the site and what
> is available on the home page -- and titles/captions certainly wouldn't
> hurt.

Categorizing your galleries with a descriptive page for each category may
help too. 

(how to ask this question) Do the search engines pay attention to their
image search results?

inez

0
iehsmith
11/23/2005 6:49:01 PM
"iehsmith" <inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:BFAA15BB.40EAF%inezhsmithspammenot@earthlink.net...
> On 11/23/05 10:34 AM, Flo Nelson commented:
>
>> For a photography site, I'd suggest a good description of the site and 
>> what
>> is available on the home page -- and titles/captions certainly wouldn't
>> hurt.
>
> Categorizing your galleries with a descriptive page for each category may
> help too.
>
> (how to ask this question) Do the search engines pay attention to their
> image search results?
>


If they can return results for something, then they've indexed it - I know 
alt text counts, not sure about image names. How things are weighted changes 
a lot and they keep it a secret.

Flo 


0
Flo
11/24/2005 1:19:13 AM
Good suggestions and I understand most of the terms. But what are "alt
tags for images" and "alt text" (from your other post)? You can tell
that I'm a web design newbie.

It seems like that the search engines' algorithms are text based. That's
why I find Google's Image search very crude. One day, someone will make
searching for images work better.

Flo Nelson wrote:
> 
> "tacit" <tacitr@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:tacitr-37E419.08495423112005@news-server1.tampabay.rr.com...
> > In article <43846FE1.1D01C1A9@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:
> >
> >> If search engines no longer rely on meta tags, what do they look at?
> >
> > They look at the words actually contained in the (visible) body of the
> > HTML.
> >
> > Google relies heavily on "page rank" to determine search engine results.
> > Page rank is a measure of how many people link to you. The idea is that
> > the more people who have Web sites that link to you, the more valuable
> > and pertinent people find your Web page, so the higher it appears in a
> > Google search. The best way to have a very high search engine result is
> > to have a large number of Web sites that link to you.
> >
> > --
> 
> Search engine ranking is actually based on complex algorithms that take a
> lot of different factors into account  - metatags, page titles, headings,
> the text of the page, alt tags for images, number of hits you get, how many
> sites are linked to you (and what their rankings are). There are also checks
> for methods that try to spam the search engines - and the penalties are
> large for doing so.
> 
> For a photography site, I'd suggest a good description of the site and what
> is available on the home page -- and titles/captions certainly wouldn't
> hurt.
> 
> Flo
0
photosonly
11/24/2005 1:53:06 PM
In article <wS0hf.3923$vq1.1639@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
 "Flo Nelson" <flojnel@anamidesignsCUTTHIS.com> wrote:

> Search engine ranking is actually based on complex algorithms that take a 
> lot of different factors into account  - metatags, page titles, headings, 
> the text of the page, alt tags for images, number of hits you get, how many 
> sites are linked to you (and what their rankings are). There are also checks 
> for methods that try to spam the search engines - and the penalties are 
> large for doing so.

That is true of everything except metatags. Major search engines do not 
consider metatags *at all*. They are not examined by the search engine 
and are not a factor in the result. 

For Google, page rank (which is more than just a number of pages linking 
to a site; it's a weighted score, which takes into account the page rank 
of the pages linking to a site as well) appears to be the single most 
important factor to where a page is returned in the list of hits. Other 
factors include the title tag (a keyword appearing in a page's title has 
more weight than the same keyword appearing in the page's body, all 
other things being equal), and many other factors, including image ALT 
text and so on.

Still, there's no getting around the fact that the single best way to 
have a page returned very high in search results is to have a large 
number of pages linking to it. My own Web site, for example, has quite a 
high PageRank (and correspondingly high appearance in relevant Google 
searches), in part because a very large number of people link to it.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
11/24/2005 6:05:15 PM
In article <4385C4F6.C60784AB@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:

> Good suggestions and I understand most of the terms. But what are "alt
> tags for images" and "alt text" (from your other post)? You can tell
> that I'm a web design newbie.

An "alt tag" is a name you give an image. It appears on the Web page 
while the image is loading, and in some browsers it appears as a little 
yellow popup when the user puts his mouse pointer over the image.

It looks like this (note: I am using "[" instead of "<" to avoid 
confusing any newsreaders that might try to interpret HTML):

[img src="http://www.someservername/someimage.jpg" alt="Gramma at the 
Beach"]

In this example, the browser will display the words "Gramma at the 
Beach" in the placeholder while the image loads; "Gramma at the Beach" 
is the alt tag for the image.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
11/24/2005 6:08:25 PM
On 11/24/05 7:53 AM, photosonly@att.net commented:

> Good suggestions and I understand most of the terms. But what are "alt
> tags for images" and "alt text" (from your other post)?

I had misspoke (not uncommon). It's not actually a tag, but an attribute of
the IMG tag.

The ALT attribute is meant to be a replacement for an image if the image
doesn't load in the browser. Example: alt="a dulling leaf that is yellowing
and curling at the edges." (It's best when you can think of the alt text as
inline text so that it sort of flows with the rest of the text content
instead of interfere with it or make for confusion.)

The TITLE attribute is just that, a descriptive title of what occupies that
area: title="Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf"

Note: ALT  text doesn't "pop up" in amny newer browsers, but TITLE text
will.

The LONGDESC attribute would contain an URL to a text page that contains a
detailed, long description of the photo like: longdesc="sickleaf_desc.html"
(or sickleaf_disc.txt). That page might read like:
-------
Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf

This is a photo of a Philodendron leaf that illustrates the dulling of its
color and gloss and the yellowing and curling at the edges of the leaf that
are the first indicators of a lack of essential nutrients and moisture in
the soil. 
-------

The IMG TAG  would look like this:
<img src="sickphilleaf.jpg" alt="a dulling leaf that is yellowing and
curling at the edges" title="Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf"
longdesc="sickleaf_desc.html" width="120" height="144"

I really need to sort through my bookmarks. The above is as I remember it
for somewhere, sometime ago. I'm sure someone will speak up if it's outdatd
info. You don't do the above with spacer images, an empty alt attribute is
sufficient. If I can find my old resource I'll post it to this thread.

inez

0
iehsmith
11/25/2005 6:14:12 PM
Thank you (and Tacit) for the explanation. I now understand what is
img's alt attribute.

When an image is displayed with a caption (outside the image), is the
caption created by the Title attribute?

iehsmith wrote:
> 
> On 11/24/05 7:53 AM, photosonly@att.net commented:
> 
> > Good suggestions and I understand most of the terms. But what are "alt
> > tags for images" and "alt text" (from your other post)?
> 
> I had misspoke (not uncommon). It's not actually a tag, but an attribute of
> the IMG tag.
> 
> The ALT attribute is meant to be a replacement for an image if the image
> doesn't load in the browser. Example: alt="a dulling leaf that is yellowing
> and curling at the edges." (It's best when you can think of the alt text as
> inline text so that it sort of flows with the rest of the text content
> instead of interfere with it or make for confusion.)
> 
> The TITLE attribute is just that, a descriptive title of what occupies that
> area: title="Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf"
> 
> Note: ALT  text doesn't "pop up" in amny newer browsers, but TITLE text
> will.
> 
> The LONGDESC attribute would contain an URL to a text page that contains a
> detailed, long description of the photo like: longdesc="sickleaf_desc.html"
> (or sickleaf_disc.txt). That page might read like:
> -------
> Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf
> 
> This is a photo of a Philodendron leaf that illustrates the dulling of its
> color and gloss and the yellowing and curling at the edges of the leaf that
> are the first indicators of a lack of essential nutrients and moisture in
> the soil.
> -------
> 
> The IMG TAG  would look like this:
> <img src="sickphilleaf.jpg" alt="a dulling leaf that is yellowing and
> curling at the edges" title="Photo that illustrates an unhealthy leaf"
> longdesc="sickleaf_desc.html" width="120" height="144"
> 
> I really need to sort through my bookmarks. The above is as I remember it
> for somewhere, sometime ago. I'm sure someone will speak up if it's outdatd
> info. You don't do the above with spacer images, an empty alt attribute is
> sufficient. If I can find my old resource I'll post it to this thread.
> 
> inez
0
photosonly
11/26/2005 7:57:42 PM
In article <4388BD69.706338D@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:

> When an image is displayed with a caption (outside the image), is the
> caption created by the Title attribute?

No. It's created when the Webmaster just types the text of the caption.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacit
11/28/2005 3:24:48 PM
On 11/28/05 9:24 AM, tacit commented:

> In article <4388BD69.706338D@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:
> 
>> When an image is displayed with a caption (outside the image), is the
>> caption created by the Title attribute?
> 
> No. It's created when the Webmaster just types the text of the caption.


The only caption tag I know of was used in tables, though I could easily be
wrong.

The title attribute in the img tag will popup when you mouse over the image.

inez

0
iehsmith
11/28/2005 5:03:13 PM

iehsmith wrote:
> 
> On 11/28/05 9:24 AM, tacit commented:
> 
> > In article <4388BD69.706338D@att.net>, photosonly@att.net wrote:
> >
> >> When an image is displayed with a caption (outside the image), is the
> >> caption created by the Title attribute?
> >
> > No. It's created when the Webmaster just types the text of the caption.
> 
> The only caption tag I know of was used in tables, though I could easily be
> wrong.
> 
> The title attribute in the img tag will popup when you mouse over the image.
> 
> inez

Thanks all, I think we have beaten this one to death.
0
photosonly
11/29/2005 2:30:34 PM
Reply: