The secret benefit of accessibility part 2: A higher search engine ranking
Featured threads
How long should we give our SEO company? 2 replies
Twitter Historical data 2 replies
Agency & supplier input needed! 0 replies
Overseas Delivery Calculation 1 reply
Retail Home Page layout 2 replies
Most viewed threads in last month
Impact of social media on the future of customer service? 462 views
The LinkedIn "Action" Bar - any thoughts? 403 views
Drop off in Forum Posts here 343 views
Looking for French SEO specialist for urgent work 272 views
Agency & supplier input needed! 268 views
Most active threads in last month
Looking for French SEO specialist for urgent work 5 replies
Drop off in Forum Posts here 5 replies
How i can do online marketing for my business? 5 replies
Impact of social media on the future of customer service? 3 replies
Website Analytics help 3 replies
Director at Webcredible
11 February 2005 14:35pm
An additional benefit of website accessibility is an improved performance in search engines. The more accessible it is to search engines, the more accurately they can predict what the site's about, and the higher your site will appear in the rankings.
Not all of the accessibility guidelines will help with your search engine rankings, but there are certainly numerous areas of overlap:
1. ALT descriptions assigned to images
Screen readers, used by many visually impaired web users to surf the web, can't understand images. As such, to ensure accessibility an alternative description needs to be assigned to every image and the screen reader will read out this alternative, or ALT, description.
Like screen readers, search engines can't understand images either and won't take any meaning from them. Many search engines can now index ALT text though, so by assigning ALT text search engines will be able to understand all your images.
2. Text displayed through HTML, not images
Text embedded in images appears pixelated, blurry and often impossible to read for users utilising screen magnifiers. From an accessibility point of view this should therefore be avoided.
Search engines equally can't read text embedded in images. Well, you can just give the image some ALT text, right? Unfortunately, there's strong evidence to suggest search engines assign less importance to ALT text than they do to regular text. Why? Spammers. So many webmasters have been stuffing their ALT tags full of keywords and not using them to describe the image. Search engines have cottoned on to this form of spamming (as they eventually do every form of spamming) and have taken appropriate action.
3. Descriptive link text
Visually impaired web users can scan web pages by tabbing from link to link and listening to the content of the link text. As such, the link text in an accessible website must always be descriptive of its destination.
Search engines place a lot of importance on link text too. They assume that link text will be descriptive of its destination and as such examine link text for all links pointing to any page. If all the links pointing to a page about widgets say ‘click here’, search engines can't gain any information about that page without visiting it. If on the other hand, all the links say, ‘widgets’ then search engines can easily guess what that page is about.
One of the best examples of this in action is for the search term, ‘miserable failure’. So many people have linked to George Bush's bio using this phrase as the link text, that now when miserable failure is searched for in Google, George Bush's bio appears top of the search rankings!
4. Website functions with JavaScript disabled
JavaScript is unsupported by up to 9% of web users (source: The Counter), either because they've turned it off (for example to prevent pop-up adverts) or because their browser doesn't support it. Many forms of JavaScript aren't accessible to web users utilising screen readers.
Search engines can't understand JavaScript either and will be unable to index any JavaScript-driven content. Perhaps more importantly, they'll also be unable to follow JavaScript-driven links. You may really like the look of your dropdown menu but search engines won't if they can't access certain pages on your site because there aren't any regular <a href> links pointing at them.
5. Alternatives to Flash-based content provided
Flash, like JavaScript, isn't accessible to many users, including those using screen readers. Equally, search engines can't access Flash so be sure to provide equivalents.
6. Transcripts available for audio
Hearing impaired users obviously require written equivalents for audio content to be able to access it. Search engines too can't access this medium, but transcripts provide them with a large amount of text for them to index.
7. Site map provided
Site maps can be a useful tool for visually impaired users as they provide a straightforward list of links to the main pages on the site, without any of the fluff in between.
Site maps are also great for search engines as search engines can instantly index your entire site when they arrive at the site map it. Next to each link you can also provide a short keyword-rich preview of the page. All links should, of course, be made through regular HTML and not through JavaScript (see 4. above).
8. Meaningful page title
When we arrive at web pages the first thing that appears, and the first thing that visually impaired users hear, is the page title. This latter group of web users don't have the privilege of being able to quickly scan the page to see if it contains the information they're after, so it's essential that the page title effectively describes the page content.
If you know anything about search engine optimisation you'll know that the page title is the most important attribute on the page. If it adequately describes the content of that page then search engines will be able to more accurately guess what that page is about.
9. Headings and sub-headings used
Visually impaired web users can scan web pages by tabbing from heading to heading, in addition to tabbing from link to link (see 3. above). As such, it's important for accessibility to make sure that headings are correctly marked up by using <h1>, <h2> etc.
Search engines assume that the text contained in heading tags is more important than the rest of the document text, as headings describe the content immediately below them. Search engines assign the most importance to <h1>, then <h2>, and so on. Make sure you use the heading tags properly and don't abuse them, as the more text you have contained in heading tags, for example, the less importance search engines assign to them.
10. CSS used for layout
Screen readers can more effectively work through the HTML code of CSS-based sites as there's a greater ratio of content to code. Websites using CSS for layout can also be made accessible to in-car browsers, WebTV and PDAs. Don't underestimate the importance of this - in 2008 alone there'll be an estimated 58 million PDAs sold worldwide (source: eTForecast).
Search engines also prefer CSS-based sites and are likely to score them higher in the search rankings because:
Conclusion
With all this overlap between web accessibility and search engine optimisation there's no excuses for not implementing basic accessibility on to your website. It'll give you a higher search engine ranking and therefore more site visitors.
Trenton Moss, Webcredible
CEO at Econsultancy
11 February 2005 16:42pm
Hi Trenton
Thanks for that. You really are King of the "Top 10" format... ;)
[NB: Not wishing to ruin your nice and tidy Top 10, but there are also search engines dedicated to people with disabilities that only index accessible sites.
So by having an accessible site you’re also opening your site up to a larger number of search referrals from those engines.]
We had our Accessibility Training course yesterday and here are a few things of interest that I noted:
1. Case studies proving the value of accessibility for SEO?
Is anyone aware of case studies, with hard metrics, proving the value of accessibility for SEO? I’m sure we can all agree with Trenton’s wise words but people are asking after hard before / after case studies that they can take to their bosses.
The accessibility-gets-you-indexed argument is the easiest one to make, and I’m sure there are case studies showing how a non-indexed non-accessible site became indexed following accessibility work, but there are plenty of sites which fail basic accessibility tests which rank very well on search engines (this site, for example).
So are there examples of where a well-indexed non-accessible site has rocketed up the rankings due to accessibility improvements (e.g. tables to CSS, adding long descriptions etc.)? (NB I’ll let you know what we find out on this for this site as we are shortly to improve accessibility among other things).
2. Will browsers or search engines auto-detect a site’s accessibility compliance level in the future?
Just as browsers can pick up privacy policies, or digital signatures, is anyone aware that search engines, browsers, or other agents will be able to automatically detect a site’s accessibility compliance level?
For example, a user with a disability could set their browser to display only sites with level AA accessibility? Or Google could take a stance and decide to rank sites with higher levels of accessibility more highly than those which are inaccessible?
3. Stats on % of UK internet users who use screen-readers?
The question was asked - how many UK internet users use screen readers? We’re checking with the RNIB on this but nothing forthcoming so far. Does anyone know?
4. Firefox and its usefulness for accessibility
I’d been tempted to download the Firefox web browser anyway, but I certainly will now as I found out some rather useful tools and tricks which it can offer which are very useful for basic accessibility checking:
Ashley
Web Consultant at architxt.net
15 February 2005 09:22am
Very good points.
I would go as far as suggesting to bother very little about SEO and use resources to do all of the above, develop content and investing PPC campaigns.
Multi Media Developer at SportNetwork.net
15 February 2005 13:13pm
Ashley,
Nice spot with that webdev tool! Most handy.
Cheers
John
CEO at Segala
20 October 2005 19:27pm
On 16:42:57 11 February 2005 Ashley wrote:
Will browsers or search engines auto-detect a site’s accessibility compliance level in the future?
Just as browsers can pick up privacy policies, or digital signatures, is anyone aware that search engines, browsers, or other agents will be able to automatically detect a site’s accessibility compliance level?
For example, a user with a disability could set their browser to display only sites with level AA accessibility? Or Google could take a stance and decide to rank sites with higher levels of accessibility more highly than those which are inaccessible?
________________________
Ashley,
The short answer is yes!
I was interested to see what people had to say about search engine optimisation a few years ago, so I could compare the old ways with the new. Whilst checking out some old posts on the subject I came across your post. I must say, you have your finger on the pulse and I’ve explained why down below. The filters that are coming are even more intelligent than you think – or at least this is something we’ll be working towards.
Leading search engines and browsers are looking to make direct use of machine readable trustmarks and content labels to improve personalised search. Visitors can then make a more informed decision about whether they want to enter a particular site.
Taking this a step further, users will be able to set user-preferences for things like whether and how prominently a label is displayed. A user may only want to see search results belonging to websites that can be shown to be accessible or suitable for children (as defined by the child’s parents). An EU funded project called Quatro [1] is about to make this a reality. The Quatro project team is using Segala’s trustmark as a primary case study that demonstrates how machine-readable trustmarks can make a substantial improvement in 'personalised search.'
A range of trustmark schemes exist around the world. In each case, a website is awarded the right to display a seal of approval or trustmark following a review by an independent authority or internal assessor. Trustmarks normally hyperlink to a certificate page provided by the labelling scheme provider to authenticate its claims. In a related initiative, the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) [2] offers a self-labelling scheme for child protection purposes and is the world’s leading example of this self-regulatory approach.
However, trustmarks are invisible to search engines which limits their value. A user must already be on a website before they know it meets a labelling provider's claims. Moreover, the logo is often displayed on just a single page and therefore invisible to visitors who are viewing other pages on the site.
O2 Plc [3] is set to become the first organisation worldwide to apply the concept of machine-readable labels to Web accessibility and mobile content by using a trustmark that can be discovered by search engines and browsers, and can be displayed wherever the user is on a site. They will also add the same type of label for child protection. This is done using a method based on a W3C standard called Resource Description Framework (RDF) [4]. RDF is platform agnostic which means it works across web and mobile technologies. The basic idea is to place a META tag on web pages to declare the extent to which it meets W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines (WAI). Or any other claim for that matter. Web pages carrying the trustmark can be verified for authenticity by cross-referencing claims with a list of certified URLs on a server.
Leading search engines and browsers are very keen to pick this up. Look out for breaking news in the coming months!
Then I’d like to see users ‘rate’ the trustworthiness of a trustmark/content label/claim (whatever you want to call it) – similar to how buyers and sellers can be rated on eBay. This would mean that ‘trusted’ sites will be rated as such, by anyone who uses them. This is where the semantic Web really comes into play…
[1] http://www.quatro-project.org/
[2] http://www.icra.org
[3] http://www.o2.com/media/latest_pr.asp
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ - a bit boring so you might want to google it
Have fun
Paul