Sorry Fonts Again

Sorry to bother you again with this (stupid) font
question …

I want a clear definition of the h1,
h2, h3 tag, because this definition is extremely
important for google and others ranking.

Problem

It does’nt show - or even take over - the styles
in to the site. Neither the H-tags nor the styles.

For ex. I want as H2 Helvetica 12 pt. not bold

I do the proper definition in the styles menu.
But there is no tag to find in html. It says as tag
“style 36” which is absolutely NOT practical and
shows me a bold font.

How can I set proper h1 h2 and h3 tags with
proper fonts and proper display in browsers?

Thanks
Tom


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 25/3/09 (at 02:57 -0400) Thomas said:

I want a clear definition of the h1,
h2, h3 tag, because this definition is extremely
important for google and others ranking.

H tags, or ‘header’ tags, are used to mark up paragraphs of text so
that they’re flagged as being header info rather than just more body
copy. In other words, they’re more important in some way,
semantically speaking. Using them appropriately is important for SEO
(search engine optimisation), but the trouble is that Times New
Roman, Bold looks so UGLY on screen!

The answer, as you know, is to create customised style attributes for
these styles so that browsers will use your preferred type settings
rather than the old Times defaults.

You should have three h tag styles listed in your Styles palette; h1,
h2 and h3.

If you want the h2 tag to be styled so it is Helvetica 12pt (or the
slightly more predictable 12px), just edit that h2 tag to have that
setting: right-click/control-click the style and choose Edit Style,
or click the palette’s cog icon and choose Edit Styles.

Once done, select the paragraph you want to mark as being h2 and
click that item in the Styles palette list. Your type will take on
that style setting, and in the output it will be wrapped in the
appropriate h tags and that tag will be restyled by some CSS styling
code.

If you need to make a new h style from scratch you must type the
appropriate name (h1, h2, h3, h4 or whatever) into the Tag field in
the Edit Style dialog - AND you must delete whatever’s in the Name
field.

Now, making these things NOT bold takes a little more effort. Just
unclicking the Bold button or removing the Style attribute entirely
won’t do it, as what browsers need here is a positive instruction to
use normal weight type. Just not saying ‘bold’ isn’t enough to
un-bold the text in browsers because they assume all header stuff
should be bold.

In the Edit Style dialog, click the Extended button, then click New
to create a new extended attribute for this style. In the Name field
type

 font-weight

and in the Value field type

 normal

Now click OK right the way back out to your page. Your custom h style
will now display non-bold text in Freeway (because it has no bold
Style setting) AND in browsers (because you’ve added the font-weight:
normal attribute).

Any use?

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

One way of removing the bold from H tags is to click in the extended option

  • make a new entry of
    name = font-weight
    value = normal

hope this helps

regards
Brian

Thomas said recently:

Sorry to bother you again with this (stupid) font
question …

I want a clear definition of the h1,
h2, h3 tag, because this definition is extremely
important for google and others ranking.

Problem

It does’nt show - or even take over - the styles
in to the site. Neither the H-tags nor the styles.

For ex. I want as H2 Helvetica 12 pt. not bold

I do the proper definition in the styles menu.
But there is no tag to find in html. It says as tag
“style 36” which is absolutely NOT practical and
shows me a bold font.

How can I set proper h1 h2 and h3 tags with
proper fonts and proper display in browsers?

Thanks
Tom


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Brian

you made my day.

thank you.

I’ve just read a studi about how important it is to tag fonts and that h1 tag is NOT important but h2 and following h-tags are VERY important.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 25/3/09 (at 07:37 -0400) Thomas said:

I’ve just read a studi about how important it is to tag fonts and
that h1 tag is NOT important but h2 and following h-tags are VERY
important.

That doesn’t make much sense. The entire h tag family is there to
provide semantic markup to text. Sure, someone might abuse this, but
if Google regards the h1 tag as suspect why would h2 be significantly
less suspect?

I personally would file this as yet another SEO equivalent of urban
legend until hard facts can prove it otherwise.

Use h tags to mark things in terms of logical importance, keeping in
mind that they’re there to provide semantic, contextual weight to
text. Combine this with text that’s written with spiders as well as
human visitors in mind and you’ll have done the bulk of your
optimising work right there.

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Look here. Its in german but h1 you might understand it anyway. If not, just ask.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Sometime around 25/3/09 (at 09:46 -0400) Thomas said:

http://www.sistrix.de/ranking-faktoren/

An interesting effort at analysing a very murky area. However, for my
mind there is not enough information about the methodology and there
are simply too many qualifiers in the text:

“the assessments can be wrong and in some cases will be”
“do not claim […] to be correct”
“intended as a basis for a discussion about possible Google ranking factors”
“balance between the titles has not been made”
“apparently”
“unclear”

So, interesting? Certainly. A good discussion starter? Absolutely.
Definitive? Not even close!

One possible reason that Google might give a disproportionate
ranking to h2 and smaller over h1 is that h1 could be more frequently
used to tag content that is relatively page-generic, such as main
headers that are the same across a number of pages. In the context of
Google’s goals - the searcher is king and relevant content is golden

  • this could be a reason why that proposed weighting might be done.
    But I don’t believe it. It is very interesting and I’m sure there’s
    good info in there, but there are way too many factors that can
    affect SEO for any unexplained methodology to convince me.

Mind you, I doubt that you’d hurt your ranking if you avoided using
h1 entirely. It is a relative thing. :slight_smile:

k


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

You’re absolutely right, k

I’ll try it yout - we will see waht happen.

By the way - I have one more question: when I use
fw actions, it gives me a lot of failures and warnings
on W3 check. Whitout, there are no warnings and
no failurs.

For ex: Image Guradian gives me up to 9 warnings. (It depends on which checkboxes I use)

This forum page here - where we are all now, has also 0 failures, 0 warnings…

What can we do? Kinda rethoric question? But maybe there is a solution.


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Thomas,
Unfortunately certain functions in the action don’t currently validate
against some of the HTML levels simply because of the way the output
code works. To have the code validate I could apply some of the
protection in other ways, through a DOM script for example, but that
in itself would mean images would only get covered if JavaScript was
enabled.
I’ll look at the issue again as I’m sure there is room for improvement
somewhere. How would you feel if there was an option to force the
action to generate valid code even if it meant losing a feature or two?
In the meantime can you send me a sample Freeway document that fails
to validate, or simply point me towards a page online, and I’ll do my
best to code these errors out of the action.
Kind regards,
Tim.

On 25 Mar 2009, at 23:43, Thomas wrote:

By the way - I have one more question: when I use
fw actions, it gives me a lot of failures and warnings
on W3 check. Whitout, there are no warnings and
no failurs.

For ex: Image Guradian gives me up to 9 warnings. (It depends on
which checkboxes I use)

This forum page here - where we are all now, has also 0 failures, 0
warnings…

FreewayActions.com - Freeware and shareware actions for Freeway
Express & Pro.

Protect your mailto links from being harvested by spambots with Anti
Spam.
Only available at FreewayActions.com

http://www.freewayactions.com


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Tim, thank you for the quick answer.

But before you start working…

The question is: how important is a failure / warning free
page? I’ve checked many pages - there are a lot
with many failures.

Ex:
apple.com/downloads: 13 warnings
ibm.com 6 warnings
versiontracker.com 163 warnings

K’s page has 4 warnings.
… lacks “summary” attribute…

The same I’ve had. 2 of the same objekts were above eachother…


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options

Hi Thomas,
With every site I create I strive for W3 validation (or as close as I can get)
but sometimes something comes up that needs adding that fails validation.
Targets in xhtml for example don’t validate which means if you want your link
to open in a new window then you will either have to ignore the validation
issues or hack your links with a script.
Standardized code is good. If your site complies and the browsers all comply
then there should be no issues when rendering the site.
Let me take a look at the internals of the action again and see what I can do.
Regards,
Tim.

Quoting Thomas email@hidden:

Tim, thank you for the quick answer.

But before you start working…

The question is: how important is a failure / warning free
page? I’ve checked many pages - there are a lot
with many failures.

Ex:
apple.com/downloads: 13 warnings
ibm.com 6 warnings
versiontracker.com 163 warnings

K’s page has 4 warnings.
… lacks “summary” attribute…

The same I’ve had. 2 of the same objekts were above eachother…


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options


Extend Freeway the way you want with FreewayActions.com
http://www.freewayactions.com


freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options