'OK I admit it we're hiding content!' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "OK I admit it we're hiding content!" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Pmarmalade

I hope this practice/"loss" of content doesn't harm your performance in the search engines...

MSE_Martin

Pmarmalade wrote: »

I hope this practice/"loss" of content doesn't harm your performance in the search engines...

We believe as its in the HTML the page loads it still counts

Clarkee21

"Geeky" Web Developer here

The content is still on the page, you can see it in the HTML source code.

They're using javascript to hide the content from your view and you clicking the headings reveals / hides it again.

Search engine completely ignore javascript, going straight for the content, so from their point of view they don't know about any of this stuff. So no harm done :T

Cheers,
James

Pmarmalade

MSE_Martin wrote: »

We believe as its in the HTML the page loads it still counts

I see it now. I quickly used Firebug to check the code but missed the content!

However, if this is the case then how is it going to speed up load times if it's all still there and loading in full every time? Is it the rendering time you're trying to improve? If anything the extra JavaScript seems to slow it down for me

It does look more manageable/less overwhelming overall though and it's easier to scroll and scan part that interests you most.

*SEO and ex-front-end dev here, I just forgot how to use Firebug, obviously

Clarkee21

However, if this is the case then how is it going to speed up load times if it's all still there and loading in full every time?

If they've got caching switched on, which for a site like this I'd be surprised if they didn't, then the Javascript will be downloaded once to your browser and then saved. If you hit another page using the same script your browser will use the cached version, it won't request a fresh copy.

So yeah a tiny load time different, talking a few Kilobytes, on first hit but not one people are likely to see.

But yeah they're smart little tools & we've found they make a big difference to our site as well

DrZoops

I've noticed the evolution towards using collaping sections and think it is a very appropriate way of making the text easy to navigate and less intimidating. The addition of the text "Open" and "Close" makes the controls suitably unambiguous, although I am curious about the rationale of alternating between red and green on the controls. I just find it a little distracting. And as I'm sure you aware, red-green colour-blindness is relatively common, so a proportion of readers may not perceive the difference anyway.

Overall, I think the approach is very effective; well done for taking the trouble to provide detailed information in an approachable format.

DrZoops

One thing I haven't tried is printing - I presume the article prints with all sections expanded?

MSE_Martin

DrZoops wrote: »

One thing I haven't tried is printing - I presume the article prints with all sections expanded?

Smiles and whistles looking in other direction

Erm no it prints whats open - we're working on it.

Toughy though as if you click print on what loks a 1,500 word article and get 30 pages would you be happy?

Pmarmalade

Clarkee21 wrote: »

If they've got caching switched on, which for a site like this I'd be surprised if they didn't, then the Javascript will be downloaded once to your browser and then saved. If you hit another page using the same script your browser will use the cached version, it won't request a fresh copy.

So yeah a tiny load time different, talking a few Kilobytes, on first hit but not one people are likely to see.

But yeah they're smart little tools & we've found they make a big difference to our site as well

Actually I was saying if all the HTML, text and images are still in there it won't increase page load speed, if that was part of the aim.

Page rendering speed seemed to be slower for me with the JS (using Chrome it seemed a bit laggy).

For usability I agree that it works a treat :j

dancingfairy

definitely makes things look straight forward and you don't get overwhelmed - like you said you can read the bits you want.
I guess you could include an option to link to a page without the javascript in if people wanted to print the article in full - yes it would then maybe take longer to load but I guess if people are aware of that and aware of the length then it wouldn't matter? only people that wanted to see the whole lot would click on it and everybody else would just print the sections that were open/relevant?
df