Scene On The Net

The hidden truth about Accessibility — Part 2

By Max Brockbank

Filed under: General
Page updated 8:36 am: March 25, 2009

In my last blog post, I talked about using accessibility standards to improve the SEO  of any web page. The theory is that because search engines like Google, Yahoo!, Windows Live and Ask are “blind”, constructing your site to work well for those with visual impairment makes them ripe for the Search Engine Spiders too.

But we can take this a stage further; making the site even more accessible AND giving the Search Engines more content to index.

In fact, the use of CSS-styling to add extra content to the page which does not show unless the stylesheet is removed can drastically improve the amount of spiderable text on a web page whilst remaining within Search Engine rules about “hidden” content.

Current W3C standards include the display attribute, which includes the value none. If this style is correctly applied to an element it will not show up in a browser which uses CSS.

For example, we can define a style called .accessible thus …

.accessible { display: none; }

This can be applied using SPAN tags thus …

Now you see me <span class="accessible">, now you don't!</span>

In a CSS-compliant browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox what is seen is

Now you see me

But remove the style sheets for the page and you see

Now you see me, now you don’t!

This means that text can now be embedded in a web page which only shows up in “accessibility” mode (i.e. when the style sheets are not used).

An example of this might be the addition of explanatory text to a web page link …

<a href="/eng/support/" rel="Get help with your BlackBerry device, software or billing, and read about BlackBerry training and how to get technical support"><span class="accessible">Get help with your BlackBerry device, software or billing, and read about BlackBerry training and how to get Technical </span>Support</a>

In the browser, with a style sheet applied, this shows as …

Support

Without a style sheet applied, this shows as …

Get help with your BlackBerry device, software or billing, and read about BlackBerry training and how to get Technical Support

This not only makes more sense to a screen reader, it also provides more spiderable text for search engines to index.


Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —

The hidden truth about Accessibility

By Max Brockbank

Filed under: JustWebContent.com, SEO
Page updated 8:27 am: March 23, 2009

Since 2005, European legislation has required EU websites to take reasonable steps to improve disability rights access.

A common myth about Accessibility is that it caters to an insignificant minority. According to the RNIB, Tesco.com gained £13 MILLION a year in new business by making its site accessible site.

While it may be great to get more business like Tesco.com, the real truth about accessibility is much more subtle — and valuable.

Right now there is one class of “blind” web users who have TRILLIONS of dollars at their disposal and can influence entire societies. They will never “see” the elegant roll-over navigations and have no interest in colour combinations. And they’re not in the slightest bit worried about flashy animations or clever scripting.

They are the Search Engines — Google, Yahoo, Windows Live! and Ask, to name just four.

The unspoken truth about Accessibility is that it is perfect for SEO. All the “best practice” techniques aimed at making the Internet experience good for people who cannot see hold doubly true for the Search Engine Spiders.

An example of this is related by spoonfed.co.uk, a London listings website which discovered that content it syndicated to other websites appeared in Google HOURS before the same stories featured on their own pages. Quite simply, the syndicated sites were using more Accessible designs.

How you can use CSS to improve Accessibility AND Content is the subject of my next post.


Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —

When is a backlink not a backlink?

By Max Brockbank

Filed under: Clients, SEO
Page updated 9:53 am: March 1, 2009

Almost everyone agrees that backinks are the BIGGEST factor in getting your site high up Googles’ front page: that is, loads of quality links to your site from important, relevant sites.

But what EXACTLY makes a quality backlink in the eyes of Google is hard to determine. If you use Google’s own Webmaster Tools you’ll find a list of backlinks AND a list of sites linking to yours (Pages with External Links) , and while the latter may be full of URLs, it almost certainly won’t match the former.

So why the difference? That’s the $64,000 question. Only Google knows for sure. Which is a pity because backlinks do seem to be the really big factor in getting to the top.

It used to be thought that published PR of the referrer — commonly known as PR — was a key factor (it had to be PR4 or greater); however, this no longer seems to be the case and sites with PR of 3 and below frequently show up.

We’ve worked on many sites where there is a big gap between “backlinks” and “sites linking”, and one connection seems to be forming — pages counted as “backlinks” get more than 100 visitors a day.

It would be stonishing if this was the only reason for the difference, but it must be at least one factor.

So, in five easy steps, here’s how to recognise a quality back link.

  • It’s relevant to your page theme
    if you run a pet store web site, a link from a local koi carp society would be relevant, a link from the local exhaust fitters would be less so.
  • It’s voluntary
    In 2007, Google started filtering out “paid-for” links schemes (although most paid directories seem to have escaped, especially where the payment is seen as a “research fee”)
  • It’s one of less than 10 links from that page
    This is why having your site on a links page is bad news for any backlink; it dilutes the power
  • It’s not reciprocal
    I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine (at least in backlink terms) seems to cancel out the strength of any link. The favored method today is three-way linking, but be prepared for that to fail anytime soon.

AND

  • The linking page is popular That is why a link to your IT start-up from time .com or the BBC talking about your great new thingummajig is better than a link from  your personal blog (unless you’re Stephen Fry or Barack Obama).

Tags for this post: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —

« Four cool aps to Twitter with

©2010 Scene on the Net — Powered by WordPress