Different HTML based on resolution
-
Is it acceptable in terms of SEO to display different HTML based on a users resolution size?
I feel I'm wasting space on my site catering for all the 1024 x 768ers
-
SEO Wise I don't think there's any issues, though I wonder what resolution the Googlebot reports itself as having. It's important though that you do it the way Chas Blackford states; if you have actual server side code that changes a bunch of things around based on resolution then you might get in trouble. This is an interesting article about using stylesheets to segment mobile layouts (it also mentions Media Queries which are kind smart/new phone specific):
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/return-of-the-mobile-stylesheet
There are some implementation issues, the most important of which is reliably getting the resolution from the agent. Essentially, you can't guarantee it 100% of the time. From what I've read a combination of user agent string matching and resolution detection can probably get you most of the way though.
-
Yes it's acceptable - the key is utilizing CSS and use a DOCTYPE with a DTD to present a different UX based on the device. Work with an experience coder who can structure the page template to put the content first, minimizing scripts, etc - you want to score high on the Google page speed test (https://developers.google.com/pagespeed/).
Then test across all devices you think 80% plus visitors will be using (check your Google Analytics to profile browsers, OS, devices and resolution)
BTW - Here's what Google has to say about SEOmoz (scoring an 83/100)
High priority. These suggestions represent the largest potential performance wins for the least development effort. You should address this item first:
Leverage browser caching
Medium priority. These suggestions may represent smaller wins or much more work to implement. You should address these items next:
Minimize redirects, Optimize images
Low priority. These suggestions represent the smallest wins. You should only be concerned with these items after you've handled the higher-priority ones:
Inline Small CSS, Enable compression, Defer parsing of JavaScript, Minify CSS, Specify a cache validator, Minify JavaScript, Minify HTML, Specify a character set, Optimize the order of styles and scripts, Remove query strings from static resources, Specify a Vary: Accept-Encoding header -
Hi Niall
Responsive design seems to be everywhere now and your point above seems to touch on this. From a UX perspective there really isn't a perfect design that caters for every single display and user. Google Analytics allows you to track screen resolution so I suggest that for any particular track this for a while and if there are mutliple types then think of designing to cater for it.
However even though I am in website design I tend to head for he safety of the middle ground and have not yet fully dived into the HTML5 /Responsive area yet as most customers are not demanding it.
However as the tablet and smart phone become the default device as opposed to the fun one it may become an issue.
hope this helps
Kieran
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
-
Different breadcrumbs for each productpage
Hi all, I have a question related to the breadcrumb. We have an e-commerce site. There is a difference in the breadcrumb when navigating to our products vs directly browsing to the URL of the product. When you navigate to the product the breadcrumb looks like this (also in the source code):
Technical SEO | | AMAGARD
Home > Sand > Sandpit sand > Bigbag Sandpit sand type xyz When you visit the product URL directly, the breadcrumb looks like this (also in the source code):
Home > Bigbag Sandpit sand type xyz Looks to me that can be confusing for a search engine and that it is unclear what the site's structure/hierarchy is like (and also for a user of course). Is that true? If yes, does this have a big direct negative impact looking at SEO? Thanks in advance!0 -
Setting up a site with different extensions (.co.uk and .com)
hi i am setting up a new site but have bought two domains to cover those who may type the wrong version. So i have: regionwithchildren.co.uk and regionwithchildren.com i am just setting up both on my wordpress host with a coming soon page (to include social links and sign up form). but had a few questions: as the main site is .co.uk should i just set up a redirect from the .com to the .co.uk as the root folders on the two will be the same (regionwithchildren) i need to change one as host cant have two identical - what should i change the .com one to? any other considerations for this kind of set up would be much appreciated? thanks neil
Technical SEO | | neilhenderson0 -
301 Redirect keep html files on server?
Hello just one quick question which came up in the discussion here: http://moz.com/community/q/take-a-good-amount-of-existing-landing-pages-offline-because-of-low-traffic-cannibalism-and-thin-content When I do 301 redirects where I put together content from 2 pages, should I keep the page/html which redirects on the server? Or should I delete? Or does it make no difference at all?
Technical SEO | | _Heiko_0 -
SEO changing from Wix Flash too Wix HTML
I have a Wix flash website www.theonlinefloorwarehouse.com.au which is number one in Google search for most of our main products Due to having a large number of changes and the draw backs with flash I pads etc I have rebuilt it in Wix HTML temporarily under this URL www.laminateflooringperth.net.au/ Now I find out Wix uses Ajax technology which most people say is useless for SEO after months of work I do not know weather to switch to the HTML site or not perhaps I should use both sites ? Has any one switched to HTML from Flash, was there a drop in or higher rankings ? Any advice would be greatly appreciated Regards John
Technical SEO | | johnnewson0 -
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)
My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal0 -
Same page from different locations has slight different URL, is it a negative SEO practice?
Hi, Recently we made change in our website link generation logic, and now I can reach the same page from different pages with slightly different URLs like this: http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=wlZJNya&by=Featured_ShowMe and http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=wlZJNya&by=Topic Just wondering is this a bad practice and should we avoid it? Thank you, Karen
Technical SEO | | showme0 -
Htaccess 301s to 3 different sites
Hi, I'm an htaccess newbie, and I have to redirect and split traffic to three new domains from site A. The original home page has most of the inbound links so I've set up a 301 that goes to site B, the new corporate domain. Options +FollowSymLinks
Technical SEO | | ellenru
RewriteEngine on
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.newdomain.com/$1 [R=301,L] Brand websites C and D need 301s for their folders in site A but I have no idea how to write that in relationship to the first redirect, which really is about the home page, contact and only a few other pages. The urls are duplicates except for the new domain names. They're all on Linux..Site A is about 150 pages, should I write it by page, or can I do some kind of catch all (the first 301) plus the two folders? I'd really appreciate any insight you have and especially if you can show me how to write it. Thanks 🙂0 -
Difference between URL Rewrites and 301 Redirects for Rankings
What is the difference between URL rewriting and 301 redirects? Specifically if my home page is rewriting the www. version and the /index.html version rather than 301 redirecting them is this equivalent? Does it still pass the link juice on those alternate variations the same way a 301 redirect will?
Technical SEO | | rcarll0