Simetrical wrote:
The suggestion here was to have the content included like any other content, but hidden using CSS. The implicit assumption here is that every user agent supports CSS. This is wrong; search engine spiders, for instance, do not. Not all mobile devices do, although that's changing. A small minority of users may also for whatever reason choose to use browsers such as lynx, that also do not support CSS.
Now, when a feature *needs* CSS or JS, and cannot be executed otherwise, we should use CSS and JS, with graceful fallback if the user agent doesn't have it. Graceful fallback doesn't include just displaying stuff that you meant to be hidden, without thinking about it. In some cases, it may actually include displaying stuff that's hidden for other users, but only when, *on consideration*, that's the best fallback possible. Since neither Jay nor you actually mentioned fallbacks, I assume you weren't thinking of them when you suggested to use CSS to hide things, which is where my response came from. I don't necessarily oppose display: none entirely; it has some perfectly legitimate uses.
I thought to have that hidden, something like a second "Category bar", Let's call it "Administrative categories". If the browser doesn't support CSS it will be shown, granted. But what's the problem on having google seeing them, or a user viewing with a soimple browser. We hide it when it can be shown later with javascript, but if it won't be able to show it, having them showed is acceptable.