Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Image Height/Width attributes, how important are they and should a best practice site include this as std
-
Hi
How important are the image height/width attributes and would you expect a best practice site to have them included ?
I hear not having them can slow down a page load time is that correct ?
Any other issues from not having them ?
I know some re social sharing (i know bufferapp prefers images with h/w attributes to draw into their selection of image options when you post)
Most importantly though would you expect them to be intrinsic to sites that have been designed according to best practice guidelines ?
Thanks
-
Thanks for confirming that Paul !
Ive also noticed that when using services like Buffer etc, to post socially, that the articles image is not being displayed as an option in the images to choose from, to display as the image in the post, Instead its only showing options like the site logo etc which we don't want. I asked Buffer tech support and they said that if the images had height/width attributes then they should then be presented as image options to accompany the post
All Best
Dan
-
Image h x w attributes don't affect the actual speed of your page load much, Dan. They do strongly affect the perceived speed to the user.
If the size attributes are included, the browser can leave a correctly-sized space for each image as the page gets rendered, even if the images haven't started to download yet. Then the rest of the page content flows in around the image "placeholders". (Images are always slower than text.)
If no image size attributes are present, the browser essentially ignores the placing of the images until the image files actually download, then redraws the whole page to add the space back in for the images.
This redrawing for the images means that text and other elements will move around on the page until all the images have downloaded and it has finished rendering. This gives the user an impression of a much slower page, since they can't start to read the content until it has stopped moving around. Done properly, the visitor can start reading the top of the page even while all the images lower on the page are still downloading.
So yes, obviously including height and width attributes for images is standard best practice for designing an effective on-page user experience.
Hope that helps?
Paul
P.S. As proof, Google thinks they're such a standard requirement that they have included a check for them as part of the scoring algorithm of their Google Page Speed tool.
-
"How important are the image height/width attributes and would you expect a best practice site to have them included ?"
This is not the most important SEO thing in the world BUT according to your 2nd question
"I hear not having them can slow down a page load time is that correct ?"
That`s the point! The question related to this issue is how relevant the whole thing might be?
Modern browsers and broadband connections seem to make this insignificant but just in case there are some visitors which are not using the right settings they might get pictures unscaled and your whole site will be shown non-responsive... by the way, use responsive designs if you can to avoid that...
I
ve always been told to use these parameters . even if you don
t need it it ensures that your code is a little bit more perfect
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
-
Our clients Magento 2 site has lots of obsolete categories. Advice on SEO best practice for setting server level redirects so I can delete them?
Our client's Magento website has been running for at least a decade, so has a lot of old legacy categories for Brands they no longer carry. We're looking to trim down the amount of unnecessary URL Redirects in Magento, so my question is: Is there a way that is SEO efficient to setup permanent redirects at a server level (nginx) that Google will crawl to allow us at some point to delete the categories and Magento URL Redirects? If this is a good practice can you at some point then delete the server redirects as google has marked them as permanent?
Technical SEO | | Breemcc0 -
Google Indexed a version of my site w/ MX record subdomain
We're doing a site audit and found "internal" links to a page in search console that appear to be from a subdomain of our site based on our MX record. We use Google Mail internally. The links ultimately redirect to our correct preferred subdomain "www", but I am concerned as to why this is happening and if it can have any negative SEO implications. Example of one of the links: Links aspmx3.googlemail.com.sullivansolarpower.com/about/solar-power-blog/daniel-sullivan/renewable-energy-and-electric-cars-are-not-political-footballs I did a site operator search, site:aspmx3.googlemail.com.sullivansolarpower.com on google and it returns several results.
Technical SEO | | SS.Digital0 -
URL Structure On Site - Currently it's domain/product-name NOT domain/category/product name is this bad?
I have a eCommerce site and the site structure is domain/product-name rather than domain/product-category/product-name Do you think this will have a negative impact SEO Wise? I have seen that some of my individual product pages do get better rankings than my categories.
Technical SEO | | the-gate-films0 -
What is the best way to redirect visitors to certain pages of your site based on their location?
One website I manage wants to redirect users to state specific pages based on their location. What is the best way to accomplish this? For example a user enters the through site.com but they are in Colorado so we want to direct them to site.com/colorado.
Technical SEO | | Firestarter-SEO0 -
Can anyone tell me why some of the top referrers to my site are porn site?
We noticed today that 4 of the top referring sites are actually porn sites. Does anyone know what that is all about? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thinkcreativegroup1 -
ALT attribute keyword on the same image but different pages
Hi there, As i'm sure you're probably aware, moz advises to use a keyword within the ALT attribute on pages... On a new website I am launching, I have the ability to add an alt keyword to image headers. On multiple pages we have the exact same image but with different keywords associated them inside the alt attribute. The image itself is a collage of different images and so the keywords used can, quite sneakily, match the image. My question is therefore, will using different keywords on the same image on different pages have a negative effect on SEO? Thanks, Stuart
Technical SEO | | Stuart260 -
NoIndex/NoFollow pages showing up when doing a Google search using "Site:" parameter
We recently launched a beta version of our new website in a subdomain of our existing site. The existing site is www.fonts.com with the beta living at new.fonts.com. We do not want Google to crawl the new site until it's out of beta so we have added the following on all pages: However, one of our team members noticed that google is displaying results from new.fonts.com when doing an "site:new.fonts.com" search (see attached screenshot). Is it possible that Google is indexing the content despite the noindex, nofollow tags? We have double checked the syntax and it seems correct except the trailing "/". I know Google still crawls noindexed pages, however, the fact that they're showing up in search results using the site search syntax is unsettling. Any thoughts would be appreciated! DyWRP.png
Technical SEO | | ChrisRoberts-MTI0 -
OK to block /js/ folder using robots.txt?
I know Matt Cutts suggestions we allow bots to crawl css and javascript folders (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNEipHjsEPU) But what if you have lots and lots of JS and you dont want to waste precious crawl resources? Also, as we update and improve the javascript on our site, we iterate the version number ?v=1.1... 1.2... 1.3... etc. And the legacy versions show up in Google Webmaster Tools as 404s. For example: http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global_functions.js?v=1.1
Technical SEO | | AndreVanKets
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.cookie.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/global.js?v=1.2
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/jquery.validate.min.js?v=1.1
http://www.discoverafrica.com/js/json2.js?v=1.1 Wouldn't it just be easier to prevent Googlebot from crawling the js folder altogether? Isn't that what robots.txt was made for? Just to be clear - we are NOT doing any sneaky redirects or other dodgy javascript hacks. We're just trying to power our content and UX elegantly with javascript. What do you guys say: Obey Matt? Or run the javascript gauntlet?0