Summary

Accessibility techniques ensure that documents delivered over the web are machine friendly. Search engine spiders are essentially machines, tasked with the job of collecting links from the Web and categorising them. As accessibility requires that content is written in plain language, with the important information delivered first, it stands to reason that accessible websites will do better than their non-accessible counter-parts with search engine positioning.

Author: Gez Lemon

Contents

Search Engine Optimisation and Accessibility

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and accessibility are completely compatible with one another. That's not completely true, but it is when SEO techniques are used correctly, and they avoid spamming techniques. An accessible website is automatically optimised for good search engine placement, as accessible sites are machine friendly, making it far easier for search engines to correctly index the website.

Serve important information first
Accessible websites are encouraged to serve important information first, so visitors can immediately ascertain the essence of the content. The earlier a phrase appears on a page, the higher the ranking it will be given by search engines.
Expand Abbreviations
Accessible websites expand abbreviations the first time they are used on the page. Expanding abbreviations not only allows those less familiar with the terms to understand the content, but also helps with keyword density and ensuring content is indexed appropriately.
Separation of Presentation from Content
Accessible websites separate presentation from content using CSS. The cleaner a document is, the easier it is for a spider to gain access to the information on a page.
Semantically correct
User agents are better able to interact with semantically correct documents. Some user agents allow visitors to find their way around your site by listing headings, links, and other elements. Spiders are also better able to make sense of the content if the content is placed in the correct elements, as they can gain extra meaning, such as with heading elements.
Text versions of non-text objects
Accessible websites contain text equivalents for all non-text elements such as images, applets, movies, sound, etc. The text equivalents ensure that search engines are also able to gain access to the information.

[Back to the contents]

Spamming Search Engines

In a recent debate about spamming search engines, Philip Chalmers mentioned that search engines need to be aware of synonyms and spelling mistakes. A few years ago, developers were encouraged to include synonyms and common spelling mistakes within their meta tags. Search engines have started to place less importance on meta tags because of the spamming techniques employed by some SEO specialists. Some search engines, such as Inktomi, do use meta tags to index a site, and won't initially rank a site without them. Inktomi are currently in the process of transferring their products and services to their partner, Overture Services, Inc, and are no longer accepting new subscribers to their services. When search engines do take notice of meta tags, they also require the content of the meta tags to be included in the content of the document, otherwise they'll assume you're just spamming. So what do you do to ensure your pages are indexed properly?

Search engines are becoming increasingly complex. If you search for the phrase, "Surch Engine" in Google, it will ask if you meant to search for "Search Engine". These types of technique are being extended for phrases in situations where it's not clear from the search term what the person is searching for.

The simplest and surest method of ensuring your documents are indexed correctly is to ensure your pages have good, accessible, and well-structured content. The algorithms used by search engines tend to be very guarded. What is known about them are usually the results of search engine strategists that analyse their behaviour in order to determine how they rank pages. Techniques to trick search engines into ranking your content higher are unlikely to work, and could ultimately result in a ban. The accessible solution is not only better for your visitors, but also ensures you get plenty of them.

[Back to the contents]

Spanish Translation

Daniel Torres Burriel has kindly provided a Spanish translation of this article.

[Back to the contents]

Further Reading

[Back to the contents]

Category: Accessibility.

Comments

  1. [accessible-seo.php#comment1]

    If accessible pages should be semantically correct - how come you have used a definition list? Headings would have been more appropriate and would also add weight to your search engine rankings.

    Practice what you preach *wink*

    Posted by Chris on

  3. [accessible-seo.php#comment3]

    Nice article, Kev *smile*

    Chris, you're quite right: the points could have been marked up as headings. In my mind, I was thinking of a list of points with a short definition of each point, so decided to use a definition list. I also didn't think that the content warranted separate headings, as I was merely defining what I meant by each point. This is exactly how the W3C recommend using definition lists, but they do tend to get overused where other semantics would be more appropriate. Sometimes these things come down to a judgement call, and in this case I feel they're appropriate for what I intended.

    Posted by Gez on

  4. [accessible-seo.php#comment4]

    "Serve important information first" (Gez). Yes, or a summary of the main points of the page. Many of my pages have a page-specific menu at the top so the user has the option to:
    * just skim the menu to get the main points.
    * go to specific sections.
    * read the lot.
    In one case I used a 2-level top-of-page menu (nested ULs). Virtue is rewarded by the fact that search engines give higher weight to link text.

    If you use this technique, it's often a good idea to place "next" / "previous" or similar links just below the top-of-page menu as well as at the bottom of the page.

    If you use "hidden text" search optimisation techniques (I said "if", I don't want to re-open the previous debate!) to deal with search engines' poor understanding of synonyms, context, sub- and super-categories, etc., you'll want to make it the first item in the HTML. To improve accessibility, start the hidden block with a "skip" link, the same way as is often recommended for long navigation menus.

    Posted by Philip Chalmers on

  5. [accessible-seo.php#comment5]

    If you use "hidden text" search optimisation techniques (I said "if", I don't want to re-open the previous debate!) to deal with search engines' poor understanding of synonyms, context, sub- and super-categories, etc., you'll want to make it the first item in the HTML. To improve accessibility, start the hidden block with a "skip" link, the same way as is often recommended for long navigation menus.

    Sorry, Philip - I know you don't want to open the previous debate, but people who haven't seen that debate will read this post and not know what was discussed. As I'm more interested in good practice than dodgy search engine practices, and the purpose of this post is to promote accessible SEO techniques, I have to point out that "hidden text" SEO techniques are extremely bad for accessibility. All pages should be usable without style sheets. Using CSS to assist spamming search engines also means that visitors with a user agent that doesn't support CSS get to see that text. If you don't mind some users seeing the text, make it available to all visitors by turning it into useful content. Providing a "skip over spam" link is not a very good solution.

    I don't mean to jump on your post of otherwise relevant points, but I do feel it's important to point out that spamming techniques can have a negative effect for some of your visitors.

    Posted by Gez on

  6. [accessible-seo.php#comment6]

    Serve important information first
    Accessible websites are encouraged to serve important information first, so visitors can immediately ascertain the essence of the content. The earlier a phrase appears on a page, the higher the ranking it will be given by search engines.

    Are you suggesting that content be ordered in code first before navbar, etc?

    Posted by Jules on

  7. [accessible-seo.php#comment7]

    Hi Jules,

    I'm suggesting delivering important parts of the content first. The first paragraph should summarise the essence of what the page is about, the first sentence should contain the key phrases, and headings should be phrased with important words at the start.

    If a website consists of a sidebar containing the same data on each page, then the sidebar should be delivered after the main content. The navigation itself is debatable, as it's not really part of the content. Personally, I prefer the main navigation to be delivered first (providing there aren't too many links and there's a skip group link), but some developers do deliver the navigation after the main content as it's the most important information, and can be rendered as if it was delivered first in a visual browser.

    Posted by Gez on

  8. [accessible-seo.php#comment8]

    Yup. It is very common for folks using float to make their lives easier by going with the nav first on the page. It is not necessary and it is absolutely disastrous for our rankings.

    Posted by Root on

  9. [accessible-seo.php#comment9]

    Hi
    I am a Sheffield based web developer who has just come off a business link run seminar on engine optimisation. Expecting to learn little as usual I was stunned by a speaker (from fastlink solutions - an optimisation company) who completely knew what he was talking about in the areas I already understood and then took me well beyond what I have already learned.

    All sounds great doesn't it? My only problem was when he declared that using CSS ruins search engine rankings. I don't understand why this would be the case but have to confess that since I started to be a good boy and try to meet the W3C guidelines my sites have not been doing quite as well in the rankings.

    Does anyone understand what he might be referring to?
    Does anyone know why CSS may cause engines problems and therefore what CSS to go light on if rankings are a priority?

    Posted by Garry Dunmore on

  10. [accessible-seo.php#comment10]

    My only problem was when he declared that using CSS ruins search engine rankings.

    On its own, that statement doesn't make any sense at all. I've heard people claim that using CSS techniques to hide content (such as methods used with image replacement techniques) can damage search engine results, but I don't believe it, and have never seen anything to back up such claims. The statement as it stands is out of context, so there's no real way of knowing the point the speaker is trying to make.

    since I started to be a good boy and try to meet the W3C guidelines my sites have not been doing quite as well in the rankings.

    I suspect it's some other factor. Separating content from presentation couldn't possibly harm search engine results; it just means robots have much better access to the content.

    Posted by Gez on

  11. [accessible-seo.php#comment11]

    Um...I don't know if you're trying to do this, but you have optimize spelled incorrectly. Not optimise....it's spelled "OPTIMIZE". It just kinda discourages me from reading your info . Wanted to let you know.

    Posted by mindy on

  12. [accessible-seo.php#comment12]

    Um...I don't know if you're trying to do this, but you have optimize spelled incorrectly. Not optimise....it's spelled "OPTIMIZE". It just kinda discourages me from reading your info .

    In your world it might be spelt incorrectly, but it isn't in mine. Kinda missing you already!

    Posted by Gez on

  13. [accessible-seo.php#comment13]

    My guess is that Mindy is simply "geographically challenged." In the U.S., '-ize' is the usual ending of many words, whilst in the U.K., '-ise' is the usual ending. I strongly believe she should've realized/realised that, but I'm sure she does have *some* intellect.

    Good information on the site. Thanks.

    Posted by Clark on

  14. [accessible-seo.php#comment14]

    In terms of accessibility via page readers, I once heard a repesentative at some conference say "in an ideal world us blind people would like a page to say 'click here for page reader version of this site' and that way we dont have to wade through all the other clutter".

    I use this advice quite literally at times with sites we optimise.

    Posted by Search Engine Optimisation Agency on

  15. [accessible-seo.php#comment15]

    Thanks for pointing out the differences for those who are "geographically challenged" and those who are not, Clark. Here in Australia we also like to "optimise" our search engine rankings.

    Posted by manda on

Comments are closed for this entry.