I had a great question posed to me at a seminar a few weeks ago. The question concerned the ultimate ownership of content, especially when using social media.

I knew that FaceBook takes ownership of your content, but I was not sure how the Terms of Service actually read. So I went there to see FaceBook’s legal policy on ownership of Intellectual Property content. And Wow! Was I in for a surprise.

FaceBook’s Terms of Service:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

I thought this was entirely out-of bounds and overreaching in terms of assuming ownership of anything anyone publishes. Then I went and checked Google’s policy, in case Google+ as an option for business marketing:

Google’s Terms of Service:

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

So, how comfortable are you posting company content, Intellectual Property, logo’s, pictures and other information? Would your legal team or lawyer feel comfortable signing this agreement?

I’m not claiming to have the answers, but I do think it is the time to ask more questions.

These three elements are amazingly useful when used properly, and mean the difference between action or ignorance. Understanding the important part that these three elements play in capturing the visitor’s attention is critical to today’s online marketing.

Google Analytics finds the Interface

Google is the most recent company to understand the critical role that something as basic as color, contrast and text size have to do with creating a successful user experience. By updating their analytics interface, they have now overcome one of the primary obstacles to gaining great data from analytics.

You see, one of the most important tools available in analytics is segmentation. The old interface in Google Analytics suffered from major User Interface problems, as the primary tools were simply not seen by the users. I was constantly amazed in my seminars as most attendees simply had no idea how to access the segmentation features available in Google Analytics. The primary reason no one knew about it? The combination of color, contrast and text size resulted in a critical tool that was difficult to find and use.

That Old User Interface

You see, here is the old analytics UI (user interface). The link to access or create an advanced segment is in the upper right corner, in light grey text in a grey background. Most people were simply not aware the option was there or that it was clickable!

Is the User Path Clear?

Then, once the link was clicked the window opened up. Pre-set segments were available to the user, but there are no custom segments, these need to be set up. However, the tool/link to access the custom segments is now on the left side of the window, in another small font text link. It’s not underlined, and it is in a very low-impact position, blending into the background. Only after the user has figured out where to click and where to go are they able to then develop custom segments.

However – the battle wasn’t won yet – the next screen took users to a screen that focuses on “Dimensions” and “Metrics,” which is another article for another day about using clear text labels for instructions.  But that has been updated.  It’s not great, but better.

The new Google Analytics interface now focuses users on a clear path to creating segments. The link for creating advanced segments uses clearer colors, higher contrast and a larger text size.  IN addition, the primary linmk to creating new segments is now located on the left side of the page.  The old location was on the right side of the poage, where eyes rarely drift, especially where there are no contrasting elements to draw the users’s eyes.  By moving over to the left side of the page and presenting it in larger text and contrast, users will now be able to see this function as part of the interface, and not an afterthought.

See how these elements work together to draw your attention to the important feature?

How are you using color, contrast and text size?

Are you directing the users’s attention, or do users have to find their own way on your pages?

Internet Marketing: An Hour a Day

is now on the way to the printers. The release date is March 29, 2011, but you can pre-order your copy today!

This exciting project was the work of over 14 months of research and development for presenting a start-to-finish guide to internet marketing. The book covers the testing of your current site or the considerations to starting a new site, and the development of marketing campaigns to extend the visibility of a business.

What Others are Saying…

Already the book has received great reviews from other peers and experts in the industry:

“Matt Bailey is one of my favorite speakers at industry events because he delivers insights with intelligence and wit. He brings that same approach to this book in what is quickly becoming the next must read for anyone interested in improving their business online.”
Brett Crosby
Director, Product Marketing; Google

“This book should be required reading for all business owners. At a time where everyone claims to be an internet marketing expert, Matt is the real deal. He has provided a clear and concise guidebook containing all the tools and knowledge to help business owners quickly unleash the power of Internet marketing, In the sea of Internet marketing books, Matt’s book rises to the top for its clarity and focus on generating ROI for business owners.”
Eric Greenberg
Faculty Chair, Center for Management Development
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

“Matt Bailey unpacks the mystery of SEO, site design, data and much else, in step-by-step directions, and plain English for the rest of us. No one else has approached the plain-English demystification of building an effective Web presence as cost-effectively and time-effectively as has Matt. This work is built on top of something like 15 years of experience in helping global majors and backyard amateurs be the best that they can be on the Internet. And maybe 5 years of teaching US Direct Marketing Association classes, and helping hundreds of students be the best they could be for themselves or for major companies in the US and abroad. If you have a struggling site and can’t figure out why it isn’t performing better, or if you just got your first PC and know your new business needs a Web presence, this book will more than repay you. It will build your business.”
Charles Prescott
Editor Prescott Report; Executive Director, Global Address Data Association;
Director, Direct Marketing Association.
Chair, Consultative Committee, Universal Postal Union

What You’ll Find in Internet Marketing: An Hour A Day

• A Holistic Approach
• How Search Engines Work
• Establishing Business and Website Goals
• Website Evaluation Tools
• Basic SEO Techniques
• Keyword Research
• Principles of Online Sales and Marketing
• Developing Great Content
• Connecting Content to Users and Search Engines
• Online Persuasion Techniques
• Improve Conversions
• Develop Effective Architecture
• Consider Accessibility
• Troubleshoot Technical Roadblocks
• The Little Details
• Link Building
• Market Effectively with Blogs
• Understand Social Media
• Develop a PPC Campaign
• Measure the Right Things
• Analyze for Action

You can pre-order your copy of Internet Marketing: An Hour a Day at:

Wiley/Sybex
Amazon
Barnes & Noble

Thank you to all who helped to make this book possible, especially to the amazing staff at SiteLogic, who performed brilliantly throughout the months in delivering quality consulting to our clients while also developing amazing case studies and examples for use in this book!

Really Google? This is what you are suggesting?

Death of the Long Tail?
Absolutely not. Google instant provides searchers with additional tools (words) that ultimately help them refine their query. In other words, it helps the searcher qualify themselves better through suggested phrases. By providing these tools to help searchers better qualify themselves and develop more throughout search terms, it drives them deeper into results, providing greater visibility to more websites. For just a few searches, a searcher is only exposed to very few sites, compared to how many are available for each search – this increases the tail, as well as the availability of sites that can be found along the tail

Typical Search Behavior
A search that was done the other day in my household exemplifies this concept – ‘children’s paddock boot size 2′ – a 5 word phrase. If you remove any word from this phrase, you also remove important qualifying keywords and intent. A searcher could shorten the phrase, but that makes it less relevant, not more. By removing descriptors, one would remove motivation and intent.

On the website site, and in instant search, there are a few things that could change – ‘children’ could be interchangeable with ‘kids’, ‘paddock’ and may be replaced with ‘riding’, but the size and the subject of the search is not going to change. This provides more challenges to the website marketer to research even more and understand the alternate terms within their own descriptions and niche.

What are you Measuring?
I would not worry about losing rankings for a specific term. While dropping more than a few rankings is uncommon, I would couple that measurement with your analytics and view your total keyword traffic for the entire keyword segment – not just that term. It may tell a very different story when you associate those words to actions and conversions, and not to rankings.

The Ultimate Responsibility
Of course, the primary responsibility of quality is in Google itself. If the suggestions are not relevant, or worse; insulting, offensive or incorrect, people will stop using the service or even stop using Google. There are many screenshots and examples of incredibly offensive suggested phrases showing up in the “instant” results. In addition to this, some programmers have even found ways to “spam” the suggested phrases, taking away from any supposed “naturally” developed search phrases.

Google is popular because of an uncluttered interface, clean search results and a fast response. Instant Search takes away from all of these areas. It is distracting, it creates distracting movement on the page that slows people from typing in their search term. Suggested phrases that are incomplete or somewhat related my be more distracting then helpful, and if people click on a phrase that might look interesting, will it really answer a question they didn’t know they had?

Ultimately, this “Instant Search” exposes Google’s more than any other change they have made. The suggested phrases and the distraction of the movement on the page may cause Google to be perceived as hard to use, or even worse, irrelevant. If it does not work, it goes to their credibility, which the clean interface always communicated. In my opinion, Google has more to lose from this new search interface than businesses.

In the past, some search engines allowed an API access key to be used for ranking report software, and it can still be utilized today. Without utilizing the API key for the reports, you could be blocked from accessing the search engine. Software-automated queries drain resources, bandwidth, and inflates ad impressions, which is used to compute quality score for Pay-per-Click Ads. In response, Google is particularly aggressive about blocking repeated queries from the same IP address. Google would rather keep advertisers happy then overly aggressive SEO’s who check their rankings incessantly.

Personalized Search

With the advent of creating accounts at the search engines, personal search histories have been accumulated. When AOL published only a few random search histories, I doubt they felt that any one of those anonymous searchers could be identified, yet some were.

Personalized search is important to the search engines for many ways, not the least of which is personalized advertising that can be crafted solely for you, based on your preferences, search history and associated accounts.

Personalization will affect search results. After all, the search engines are attempting to provide the best, most relevant results to the searcher, and using their search history will enable the engine to adjust the results as necessary to create that personal relevance.

I expect this to continue to grow, as the line of privacy and advertising becomes increasingly blurred. Many people choose to give up privacy in order to receive more relevant advertising, and do not see the risks.
As a result, the rankings you see may differ from your neighbor, simply based on your past search and click-through behavior.

Google’s Promote Results

Google’s search results instituted a feature recently, called promote results.
It’s simple. I you like one result over another, simply promote the result. Of course, many webmasters see this as a means to affect rankings. Sorry, but no. If it does, it is on a very minute scale. Anything that can be manipulated by people on a large scale tends to hold little value.

If anything I have seen this used very effectively by marketing managers that are able to go into their bosses’ computer and promote their website for specific search terms. That way, to the boss, they are always #1, and he leaves them alone, and stops demanding to know why the website is not ranking first.
Tricky, but effective.

Multiple Search Engine DataCenters

Each search engine has data centers located all over the country and all over the world. Even in one office, different computers may hit a different datacenter. Data centers are consistently being updated, and it is very easy to see different results, usually only within a few rankings, from a search of different data centers.

The API Access

With the API key, the search engine could direct the automated queries to a specific datacenter. However, it was immediately apparent that the datacenter was out of sync with the live results. We liked to joke that the datacenter for rankings queries was out-of-date and hidden in a forgotten closet.
Without an API Key, you would be likely to see this:

Either way, it was more accurate for a client to simply open a browser and search for words and rankings manually. The results are much more accurate. Having a company run a rankings report, save it to PDF, and then send by email, results in a report that is outdated before it was begun.

Regional Weighting

A New Yorker searching for the term “Zoo” on Google is going to get results that show the Bronx Zoo as being the most relevant result. A Google searcher in Southern California will see the San Diego Zoo as number 1. Regional searches are being weighted and slowly implemented. Obviously, this doesn’t work with many terms, as they are world-wide in scope.

However, Google has recently, within the past few years, placed a heavy emphasis on local results, maps and business listings. Offering searchers local based results creates more advertising inventory, and also connects users to locally-based providers. Intentional or not, Google is turning the world market back into a local market. Locally-based searches provide a more relevant result to a local searcher.

Social Network

A friend of mine was searching Google for analytic information, and he saw a result from my blog in the first page of results. While I’d love to thin that I earned that spot on the first page with my brilliant analytics writing, it was actually because I was in his social circle, and the results were presented because of the Social Circle Beta in Google. The reason that page was in the results he was logged into Google, had a Google Social Profile, and Google was recommending articles as a result of our social profiles being linked.

In addition to the Social results in the search results, there are news article suggestions and book suggestions rounding out the bottom of the first page of results. The search results page is becoming a very busy place, and also a very personalized space. As searchers start to link social profiles, ecommerce profiles, regional preferences, the search results are going to reflect more of a personal nature, and be nearly unique to each searcher.

Where is this Heading?

Continual changes like this Social Profile Suggestion Beta program show the direction that a search engine like Google is heading. Google is integrating social recommendations, multimedia, personalization and regionalization as a way of customizing search results specific to a person. The more information you provide to Google through your account, the more Google can and will customize your search results.

The days of gaining the #1 ranking in Google, and knowing that everyone searching will see that #1 ranking are over. Rankings are the “sugar high” of marketing, but now it’s time get down to the main course and start measuring better things . . . .

Planning for a Re-Design
I find that in our development and Information Architecture consulting, one of the largest hurdles that we encounter is dealing with the transition from the old website to a newer architecture. For larger sites, planning a transition to maintain the links and rankings held by thousands of pages that will no longer exist is quickly becoming one of the more time consuming tasks.

Surprisingly, the main obstacle to developing improved websites (both architecturally and usability) is the search engines themselves. The method of retrieving pages into a central index for an algorithm is outdated and antiquated, as it does not account for improvements and changes in a website. In short, companies are being penalized for not being aware of the limitations of search engines, Google in particular.

What goes wrong:
1. In a new website project, the architecture of the site typically changes. Companies are becoming more aware of search-friendly programming and implementing it into their development. However, when the new architecture goes live, the old architecture and old pages addresses (URL’s) held the rankings.
Results: Rankings are lost as old pages are no longer available.

2. Incoming links to the website and the deep pages within the website no longer have a destination (page names usually change with a new architecture). This reduces the “link juice” that is carried to that website, as the destination of the link no longer exists.
Results: Decreased rankings and value based on incomplete (broken) incoming links.

Redirects
To remedy these situations, the old formula of applying URL rewrites and 301 redirects is employed in order to match the old pages to their newer counterparts. However, this requires server power to accomplish. In a re-direct, the old page is requested, and the server scans through the instructions to see if there is a new page to deliver instead of the old page. In doing this, rankings can usually be maintained.

Redirected Links
Links are also maintained, but lose their value overtime. Redirected links not a direct link; the new page destination may not be the page intended as the original link destination, thereby losing value. It is always best to have a direct incoming link for best link value. However, for site owners with hundreds to thousands of links, they now have to go back and ask other webmasters, site owners and companies to edit the links on their sites to point to the new URL in order to receive the full value. Is that really necessary? Is search engine technology so lacking in foresight that this will be the bane of webmasters and marketers for the next decade?

The issue with redirects is that every redirect takes a fraction of server resources to accomplish. A few redirects are fine, however when working with sites that are taking 8-10 years of history and thousands of pages, the redirects become a significant drag on server resources.

Duplicate Content
This also takes into account that the redirects are written and applied properly. I am amazed at the canonicalization issues that still hinder websites and the amount of work that a webmaster is expected to perform in order to “help” the search engines.

I have worked with many programmers that do fantastic, innovative work and develop amazing applications within websites, only to have the issues of duplicate content hinder the website. What can be considered effective user-based programming has to be tossed out the development window in order to accommodate search engine crawlers. How many companies are even aware of duplicate content and how that can hinder their rankings in search engines? How many websites are being penalized unaware?

Google asks: “Would I do this if the Search Engines Didn’t Exist”?
Companies are developing websites smarter than ever, using search friendly architecture, AJAX, CSS and other technologies in an attempt to make the experience better for their users. However, because the information of information retrieval is so outdated, these same companies are penalized for changing a site that would have been better left alone.

Essentially, Google has written the rules of website development, re-development and innovation. If a company is not aware of those rules or does not invest the time and money to reverse engineer their new website to accommodate outdated technology, then they are effectively penalized.

In short, the rule of “Would I do this is Search Engines didn’t exist?” (Google Webmaster Guidelines: Quality Guidelines – basic principles) is nonsensical. Especially when paired with the latest news of Google’s attempt to solve the AJAX issue – developers are left to struggle with increasingly outdated search engine technology in an attempt to have a new website (that is hopefully better for their users) maintain rankings.

I enjoy a good challenge, but the challenge is starting to come at the expense of innovation for developers and the companies that desire to improve their online presence and user experience. Rather than innovate in tools and applications, it’s time for the search engines to step up and improve their methods in their core service – search.

Otherwise, true innovators are the ones who are penalized.

Part 3: Segmentation Finds Motivation

Why Segmentation?
Segmentation is the principle that people come to the website for many different reasons, they enter at many different points, the see different pages, and are looking for many different pieces of information. Basically – you can’t treat all of your visitors the same way, neither in the marketing and content nor in the measurement and analysis. As John Marshall of Market Motive (who also developed ClickTracks) famously said, “people are not cattle.” Therefore, we should not treat them as such.

Aggregate = Inaccurate
Funny enough, when we build reports on aggregate data (page views, visitors, top 10 pages, top 10 search terms) we are doing exactly that. Aggregate numbers view people as a herd of cattle, all with the same motives, behaviors and views. Segmentation allows a deeper examination of the website and the different types of people and their motivations.

Analytics finds Behavior based on Expectation
By simply segmenting visitors based on their keyword searches, motivation can be determined. By segmenting those same visitors based on goal completion and the entry point of the site, you can begin to compare behavior alongside the motivation. Comparisons allow new ways to interpret the data, and find areas of the website that need immediate improvement. Not all products can be sold the same, so why measure them the same?

Context, Context, Context
Building context is a primary step in developing new ways of viewing data. The more we know about a group of visitors, the more we can understand them. By viewing people as the complex organisms that they are, we can begin to develop the site around them and make changes suited to best market to that segment. This isn’t a difficult step; it’s actually very simple by using the 3C’s of Analytics: Context, Contrast & Comparison.

Context is simply building multiple data points into a specific view of activity. Essentially, the more data points involved, the better the story becomes. Adding content to a segment tells a particular story about a specific group of people and what they encountered on your website.

Start building context by segmenting visitors based on the acquisition method and their motivation. Contrast that with the average, which Google Analytics does by default, in order to see how this segment performs compared to the site average. Then, compare to other segments in order to find significant differences. Comparison allows the analyst to find specific segments that are performing at extremely high or low levels. This is the first method of a direct evaluation for the website.

Test poorly performing segments, and grow the higher segments. Compare segments and keyword rankings to be sure that you are targeting the right words. Get a clear picture on exit rates by finding the segment that is contributing the most. Comparing and contrasting segments is the basis of learning, and it is the easiest method to find opportunities for growth in your marketing. You may find that your best ranking keywords, the ones bringing in the most traffic, are also the worst performing group. Only segmenting and building context will allow that exploration.

More Data Points = More Understanding
The simple conclusion to this type of analysis is that there must be multiple conversion goals. One conversion rate doesn’t tell the story of who came to the website, what they expected to see, what they did see, and how they reacted to it. Multiple conversion rates; based on keywords, actions, product types, price points, keyword rankings, navigation methods are just a few of the ways that one can build conversion segments.

Action-based conversions, such as video views, navigation tendencies, point to the behavior of people within a segment and can provide insight as to how people respond when they interact with elements within the website. Understanding the actions and how they affect conversions will provide direction for continued development of interactions within the website.

Part 4: Compared to What?

Related Articles:
Segmentation: Analytics According to Captain Kirk
Social Media Under the Microscope
Multi-Channel Marketing and Self-Fulfilling Prophesy

Part 2: Ambiguity is Opportunity

Hamster-Wheel Analytics
From Part 1, setting goals is the first and only place to start when developing an analytics strategy. Otherwise, the analyst or the website marketing manager will spend the majority of their time developing reports with numbers on them. The rest of their month will then be spent justifying why those numbers are higher or lower than the previous month. Without goals, there is simply no direction.

Large numbers become the goal, and people become enamored with large numbers, even though everyone knows that more visitors is not necessarily the goal. Qualified visitors are the goal . This is hamster-wheel analytics. The endless cycle of doing the same thing and going nowhere.

Why Do You Have a Website?
Clearly stated goals are the first place to start. I find that the best answers are the clearest and simplest. Points are awarded for brevity. Two word answers are clear, and everyone involved in the website should have these printed out and displayed clearly, as they are your new measuring stick – The measurement upon which every decision about the website should and must be based.

No guesswork, measurement.
1. What is the purpose of the website?
2. What is the company goal for the website?
3. What do we want visitors to do?

One of the best goal statements I heard from a company was the simplest. Make Money, Sell Shoes. Simple, to the point and a clear measuring stick from which to base every decision. From design, analytics, social media strategy and continued development, the questions are simple – “Does it make us money? Does it sell shoes? From that, a successful website marketing strategy is born.

Into Action
How these are answered provide the framework for building measurement outcomes for the website. By now, I am hoping that the numbers developed for typical reports would start to seem like foreign concepts. How can you measure company goals and visitor expectations by unique visitors and page views? Hint: you can’t.

Clearly, we need to think differently about our concept of analytics.
This concept was made clear when I read Iconoclast. The book features examples of those individuals who went against common thinking and the wisdom of crowds. Gregory Berns, a neuroscience attempts to explain how iconoclasts think differently, respond differently and can even learn things differently.

Pursue Ambiguity
In one of the sections he discusses the concept of Bayesian updating. Most people learn by entering a subject with a preconceived idea of what they need or want and then find the information that develops and reinforces those ideas.

People tend to avoid ambiguity – as ambiguity is traced to a fear of the unknown. People desire some semblance of structure, which is why it is easy to cling to the concepts of unique visitors, hits, page views, time on site, etc. However, when the goal is to increase sales and get to the “why” of analytics, it requires foraging into the unknown and making guesses. Some of those forages may not yield substantial information; most will reward the analyst with a gold mine of information.

The most important trait is the ability to learn and respond as new information is found.

Bayesian updating is important to an analyst as it is the process of using new information to update probability. As Berns writes, “The key reappraisal for ambiguous circumstances is to view ambiguity as an opportunity for gaining knowledge.”

Once the goals have been established and the analyst has been freed from the shackles of mundane reporting, the process can be viewed as a blank slate. Start from the company goals to determine how the website is doing.

The very first report I would recommend building is an acquisition report based on motivation. Who came to the website and why? Segmentation is the principle that answers motivation.

Part 3: Segmentation Finds Motivation

Related Articles:
Why are Analytics So Difficult? Can you appreciate the irony of this title?
Analytics 1.0: A case of Velliety
The Lost Art of Sales

The History of Bad Stats
Because the early stats program provided just that: statistics. Mainly, the statistics were based on numbers that webmasters needed to estimate bandwidth and hosting requirements. People assumed that the numbers provided in these reports were important. Granted, for many businesses, a goal of increasing visitors was able to be reported, but that’s about as far as one could go. Because of the limited amount of information provided in these reports, marketers simply added them into web reports and they essentially became part of doing business online. It was (and still is) assumed that if these were the numbers provided by the stats, then these must be important and necessary – the measuring stick with which we are provided.

Your Measuring Stick is Wrong
And that is my theory. We were given a measuring stick at the beginning of the internet age, and many people have not yet realized that the measuring stick is wrong. Thus, the words “hits” is so engrained into the vocabulary of many business people, not realizing exactly what hits are, nor how they affect the website, or even much larger, the business.

So, we need to trade in our old measuring stick for a new one. One that is based not on off-the-shelf, one-size-fits-none numbers, but one based on the company’s website marketing goals.

Goals?
Goals are the starting point for any analytics endeavor. “Analytics works best when measurement expectations are clearly defined in advance,” wrote Eric Peterson in Web Analytics Demystified “not after the fact or on an ad-hoc basis.” Smart words.

Most marketers attempting web analytics are missing this piece of the puzzle. What are the measurement expectations? Does management simply want to know the number of visitors to the website and why that number is lower than the previous month? If so, then I pity your job. Justifying visitor numbers within in a vacuum without any context has nothing to do with improving the company website.

Every analyst needs to demand clear goals in order to create the correct measuring stick. Without these goals, there is no point in tracking anything.

Part 2 – Ambiguity is Opportunity

Related Articles:
Analytics as a Subversive Activity
Marketing without Metrics?
Multi-Channel Marketing and Self-Fulfilling Prophesy

I’ve worked with too many projects where a vendor has sold a program, content management system or software application as a part of the overall project, and claimed that it was “technically compliant”. “Sure it is 508 compliant,” they say. Not understanding the implications of such a statement.

Invariably, the application is exposed for what it really is. A basic treatment of accessibility veiled in sales gibberish. The charade lasts until it is actually placed under scrutiny of those will be needing accessibility features. When asked to produce evidence of 508 compliance or some sort of accessibility certification, there is rarely any documentation, other than a simple automated test.

So, what is “technically compliant”?
I would describe “technical compliance” as a label company’s use when they go through the motions of compliance, without truly understanding the reasoning and methods of accessibility. Simply running a page or an application through an automated accessibility checker is NOT an approval for the “accessible” label.
Accessibility is much more than the “strict” side of the technical checklist. Accessibility is about much more than screen readers. Accessibility is about understanding the people that use a website and that making a website accessible actually makes it easier to use for everyone, not just a single, small group of people that need these features.

To better understand the “technically accessible” label that people like to use, I like to examine some of the elements of the Web Accessibility Checklist, version 1, developed by the W3C. These are elements that cannot be tested by automated software, only by actual human testing.

Where Automation Fails
MultiMedia
Checkpoint 1.3 Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.

This just makes sense. Search engines can’t read images, video, podcasts or other multimedia. Instead they rely on tags, descriptions and transcripts. For accessibility, this also provides information to anybody; regardless of access device, technology, browser, or assistive technology.

Color Contrast
Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed by color is also available without color.

Checkpoint 2.2 Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen.

There are numerous contrast tools available online, some are much better than others at identifying contrast issues on a web page. I prefer aDesigner from IBM, as it highlights specific areas on the page and identifies them as problem areas. The main issue is that running a website code through a validation test does NOT identify problem contrast areas. This is a visual test, and must be tested by humans in order to find the problems.

Contrast is also a key element in design. By using contrast designers can influence the path of the eye as it follows the information and is attracted to specific calls to action. High contrast areas on a page get much more attention and are easier to see. Misusing or misunderstanding contrast results in a very poor user experience

Markup
Checkpoint 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information.

Checkpoint 4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs.

Another validation test that an automated procedure will miss is the ability to spot when an image is not clear and mark-up would do a better job of conveying information. IN addition, there are many times when another graphic might even be more explicit. Again, only human testing will show these issues and no amount of automated testing will provide correction.

Abbreviations and acronyms are to be defined in the markeup, which enables users to simple see purpose of the letters. It provides clear context to the abbreviations or the confusing world of acronyms. This is especially helpful when the acronym is also a word, which can be confusing.

Issues related to this area are the surging popularity of tag clouds, where large numbers of words are rendered on the page and their popularity is shown based on text size. For users accessing the site through a reader, there is no method of understanding the difference in size of these tags. The tags are simply read aloud with no context, order or understanding of their purpose.

Programming
Checkpoint 7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages.

Checkpoint 6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets.

Checkpoint 9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects.

Movement on pages is just like the aggravation of watching cable news networks. The news ticker that tries to compete with our attention as we watch the talking head and listen to the news and look at the news video – too many things compete visually for your attention. When the same principle is applied to a web page, the same result applies. When there are too many competing elements for the viewer’s attention (movement) there is no clear place for the user to focus their attention. It lessens the ability of the page to communicate a specific idea or purpose.

Tab order is especially critical, especially in administrative screens, ecommerce sites, interactive technologies and other form-intensive applications. This can take place in everything from a content management system to setting up a YouTube account. Tab order allows keyboard-only users to tab through forms and options. If the order is not logical, the cursor focus can easily be lost.

Tab order is not something that can be tested with automated software or web validation. It requires strict human testing and intervention, especially on different operating systems, browsers, computers and assistive technology. The combinations of all of these technologies create issues and different combinations may produce very different results. Human testing is the only way to find this issue.

Readability
Checkpoint 12.3 Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate.

Checkpoint 12.4 Associate labels explicitly with their controls.

Checkpoint 13.8 Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.

Checkpoint 14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for the site’s content.

Checkpoint 14.3 Create a style of presentation that is consistent across pages.

None of these points are able to be tested in any type of automated environment. One of the most difficult problems online for websites is readability. Beyond readability, it is estimated that 40% of the population has lower literacy skills. Add to that low-vision, senior citizens and new adopters of the internet, and there is a significant learning and learning curve that keep people from easily accessing the information that they need.

Clear and simple language, consistent presentation, making text readable by arrangement, mark-up and headings – all of these are techniques that make content more accessible. They also rely on testing with target audiences rather than an automated button-push.

Navigation
Checkpoint 13.1 Clearly identify the target of each link.

Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner.

Checkpoint 13.5 Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism.

Users need to have a sense of location when they are on a page – Where do I go if this is not the right page? Where is there related information? How do I get there? These are all questions that can be answered quickly and easily by a good navigational structure with visual indicators, highlights and clear labels and targets.

In a sense, users need a sense of location, clear content relation, common sense navigation and a call to a specific destination in order to reduce their frustration. Deny any of these mechanisms, and your site is a whole lot harder to use. Automated tests, again, fail to properly identify issues of clarity, purpose, consistency, readability and understandability.

Automated Testing Fails True Accessibility
These are issues that no amount of automated testing will grasp. When a company claims “technical accessibility” it is because they have not actually tested their software or content management system with people, much less tested with those that rely on assistive technology. Simply choosing which checkpoints are more important than others and adhering to those are a dangerous precedent to establish. In doing so, adhering to strict technical issues, but not the grammatical, layout, contrast, navigation or readability issues ignores a significantly large portion of the population that can benefit from these improvements.

No amount of automated testing will explain to you that your instructions are unclear and visually hard to find. Only testing performed by people that are familiar with assistive technology, accessibility and the multitudes of combinations of these issues can ensure that a site is truly certified as accessible.

Developing a new website?
If you are a project manager or web manager, and you are tasked with purchasing or building a specification for a website, application or content management system, I recommend that you demand a third-party verification of accessibility. Relying on the manufacturer’s word and getting the “technically accessible” line can come back on you when a user discovers the truth.

As an example, a well-known software manufacturer claimed that their software was “technically accessible” that they met 508 requirements. Interestingly, the reports the software generated were accessible, but the methods necessary to generate those reports were not even close to being accessible.

Do the Work, Reap the Rewards
In their haste to be technically correct, programmers and development companies have forgotten (if they ever even knew) that the readability of the content, and the clarity of instructions, and calls to action are just as critical to accessibility as alternate navigation, alt attributes and graceful degradation.

Related Articles:
Observing Accessibility
The Importance of Context in Content
Content v Creative – Where Does the Customer Count?