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 -
Relative or Absolute???
https://moz.com/learn/seo/internal-link
Web Design | | Mike.Bean
https://moz.com/blog/relative-vs-absolute-urls-whiteboard-friday I have read both articles above, however further reading the comments that followed, it appears that neither provided an answer. Some said Absolute and some were determined that Relative linking is the only way to go. There were heated comments, apologetic comments and mostly comments agreeing to disagree. But in the end I think what I got out of it was there are two sides to developing a site. Side A: Web Developer Standpoint, Relative (easier) Side B: SEO Standpoint, Absolute (harder) To me Side B puts money in the bank, so I will go with B. Now since we’ve been dealt the recent https algo, there seem to more opinions that are thrown into the question. All I’m asking for is a straight answer so our employees can feel confident that our efforts are not in loss. I also want to ask about how images should be linked internally. NOTE: Our sites are not all https but have SSL’s in place, and 301 redirects reflect http versions of pages. So since it appears Absolute linking is the preferred method, I ask which is the best option or an option at all. Internal Navigation: Current internal link - /store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm Absolute Options http://www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (what I see for most Absolute links)
www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (would this work for both http and https?)
//www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (would this work for both http and https?) All three links above resolve to www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm with no http:// in front. If I type https://www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm in the url it resolves to https://www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm with the https:// in front. Internal Images: If I want my images to be indexed as well as pages should I be using Absolute links for them as well? Current internal image link - /store/pc/images/rollators.jpg Absolute Options http://www.company.com/store/pc/images/rollators.jpg (what I see for most Absolute links)
www.company.com/store/pc/images/rollators.jpg (would this work for both http and https?)
//www.company.com/store/pc/images/rollators.jpg (would this work for both http and https?) Just once I would like an answer that’s not:
It depends on the site or it doesn’t matter which method you use, they both work lol. I would like one that says google likes this better. Thanks for taking the time to help us understand and can’t wait for MOZ Con this September.0 -
Hi, I have a doubt. If we want to hide unwanted text in a web page its possible with "" tag. And my question "does a search engine crawl those text? help me.
I want to hide a lot of text behind my site page. I know its possible with that tag. But in what way a search engine looks at those text? Hidden or they are crawled and indexed.
Web Design | | FhyzicsBCPL0 -
Penguin 2.0 drop due to poor anchor text?
Hi, my website experienced a 30% drop in organic traffic following the Penguin 2.0 update, and after years of designing my website with SEO in mind, generating unique content for users, and only focusing on relevant websites in my link building strategy, I'm a bit disheartened by the drop in traffic. Having rolled out a new design of my website at the start of April, I suspect that I've accidentally messed up the structure of the website, making my site difficult to crawl, or making Google think that my site is spammy. Looking at Google Webmaster Tools, the number 1 anchor text in the site is "remove all filters" - which is clearly not what I want! The "remove all filters" link on my website appears when my hotels page loads with filters or sorting or availability dates in place - I included that link to make it easy for users to view the complete hotel listing again. An example of this link is towards the top right hand side of this page: http://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/agganis-arena-hotels/300382?star=2 With over 6000 venues on my website, this link has the potential to appear thousands of times, and while the anchor text is always "remove all filters", the destination URL will be different depending on the venue the user is looking at. I'm guessing that to Google, this looks VERY spammy indeed!? I tried to make the filtering/sorting/availability less visible to Google's crawl when I designed the site, through the use of forms, jquery and javascript etc., but it does look like the crawl is managing to access these pages and find the "remove all filters" link. What is the best approach to take when a standard "clear all..." type link is required on a listing page, without making the link appear spammy to Google - it's a link which is only in place to benefit the user - not to cause trouble! My final question to you guys is - do you think this one sloppy piece of work could be enough to cause my site to drop significantly following the Penguin 2.0 update, or is it likely to be a bigger problem than this? And if it is probably due to this piece of work, is it likely that solving the problem could result in a prompt rise back up the rankings, or is there going to be a black mark against my website going forward and slow down recovery? Any advice/suggestions will be greatly appreciated, Thanks Mike
Web Design | | mjk260 -
Can you use a base element and mod_rewrite to alleviate the need for absolute URLs?
This is a follow up question to Scott Parsons' question about using absolute versus relative URLs when linking internally. Andy King makes the statement that this can be done and that it saves additional space (which he claims then can improve page speed). Is this a true and accurate statement? Can using a base element and mod-rewrite alleviate the need for absolute URLs? I need to know before going off on a "change all of our relative URLs to absolutes" campaign. Thanks in advance! Dana
Web Design | | danatanseo0 -
Using More Info javascript:toggleDisplay tag for More info text
Is there any harm in using javascript so a user can "toggle" open or closed additional text on a website? For example, if a user wants to read more about something, they can click on "More Info" and the text would then appear. Google is able to read the text, because I chose a random 8 word section of the text within the More Info and pasted it into a Google Search and the website showed up in search results. Just wondering if using this technique would have any negative impact. Here's what the code would look like:
Web Design | | EEE3
<a <span="">title</a><a <span="">="Show Tables" href="</a><a class=" " target="_blank">javascript:toggleDisplay('table1')</a>">More Info style="display: none;" id="table1"> this is where the text would be, and from this section was where I grabbed text to search with in google. Then in the footer, here is the script needed so the more info will work: I am by no means an expert in coding/html/javascript. Thanks!0 -
Duplicate H1 tag IF it holds SAME text?
Hello people, I know that majority of SEO gurus (?) claim that H1 tag should only be used once per page. In the landing page design I'm working with, we actually need to repeat our core message stated in H1 & H2 - at the bottom of the page. Now the question is: Can that in any way cause any ranking penalty from big G? In my eyes that is not attempt to over optimize page as it contains SAME info as the H1 & H2 at the top of the page. Confusing, so I'm hope that some SEO gurus here will share some light on this. Thanks in advance!
Web Design | | RetroOnline0 -
How will engines deal with duplicate head elements e.g. title or canonicals?
Obviously duplicate content is never a good thing...on separate URL's. Question is, how will the engines deal with duplicate meta tags on the same page. Example Head Tag: <title>Example Title - #1</title> <title>Example Title - #2</title> My assumption is that Google (and others) will take the first instance of the tag, such that "Example Title - #1" and canonical = "http://www.example.com" would be considered for ranking purposes while the others are disregarded. My assumption is based on how SE's deal with duplicate links on a page. Is this a correct assumption? We're building a CMS-like service that will allow our SEO team to change head tag content on the fly. The easiest solution, from a dev perspective, is to simply place new/updated content above the preexisting elements. I'm trying to validate/invalidate the approach. Thanks in advance.
Web Design | | PCampolo0