Breaking News: Google’s accessibility mission

[Webnauts]

Information access is at the core of Google’s mission, which is why theywork to make the world's content available to people with disabilities, such as blindness, visual impairment, color deficiency, deafness, hearing loss and limited dexterity. Building accessible products isn't only the right thing to do, it also opens up Google services to very significant populations of people. According to the United Nations, 650 million people live with a disability, which makes them the world's largest minority.

Congradulations Google!

[innominds]

I appreciate Google's mission of universally accessibility.
Hope it caters the services to the largest minority as soon as possible.

[kgun]

Good post John.

Will Accessibility become a site quality score for Google?

I voted definitely.

That does not imply that it will be (is) a direct SERP ranking factor. Indirectly it should be a ranking factor since it will be easier to discover the site (at least for disabled people).

What about incorporating it into a more refined measure of the quality (importance) of a web site than PageRank?

[Doc]

I voted Definitely, although nothing can be considered definite with Google, even after they say it.

In reality, I think accessibility needs to be one of the criteria for ranking site quality. I hope they do so, but with clearly defined standards.

[Uncle Dog]

Definitely - but don't hold your breath. I vote we start with the commonest form of colour blindness and remove all Reds & Greens from the internet.

[Tubby]

I voted against because of the wording.
"Will Accessibility become a site quality score for Google? "

I think that google will never be the judge of quality, the moment google sets out to decide the quality of the site is the day google signs its death warrant.

The rest of the web will decide. . . google will and should reflect that choice.

Fair enough if google wants to devalue links that look manipulated. But creating a value for web pages that are not a reflection of user opinion is too far a leap for me to accept.

The day Google decides the Value of a site ............ BOOM! ( they are gone )

The value should and will come from the blind societies - placing links. the deaf societies placing links - the old people that cant see the screen group placing links.

that is the proper way. . Nobody will accept google as the judge of quality. . . Google reflects quality (or gives that objective its best shot).

[Tubby]

uncle dog said
"remove all Reds & Greens from the Internet"

The blue greens have already been merged, and a good chunk of the reds are brown already.


Note 650 Million people living with a disability - That is not one group - and if it is one group then you had better make it 649,999.999 Because I refuse to accept status of disabled. .

[full house]

hope google will also help other country that hit by natural calamities like Philippines and Indonesia.

[jgand]

It sounds great and I wish google great success with its mission. Ultimately it has to be profitable to continue to provide services.

[Doc]

Nine posts, and only five votes... I would have thought that an issue that could seriously affect our SEO efforts would have gotten more interest.

Good post, John.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

The day Google decides the Value of a site ............ BOOM! ( they are gone )

They dared already to set quality scores for their AdWords system where they make real money, and they are not gone. And if I do not recall Yahoo is gone.
So how can they be harmed with setting a new quality score for their organic search?

And they have several quality scrores in the organic search already. Why aren't they gone already? Everyone does what Google tells. If you want to accept that or not.

And I think you missed something. Google would never be a judge. Accessibility guidelines are not made from Google or for Google. Those are web standards, which are getting more and more established on the web.

To be more specific, Google always aimed to return quality search results, and not garbage results. So I think it will be a great move. Not only spam is garbage. Don't you think?

Some further reading about web accessibility: Accessibility - W3C

[Webnauts]

Side note to this topic:

Who ever fights against the web accessibility standards, fights against the equal opportunity of people with disabilities. Does discrimination have something to do with personal or business morals? For me not. How about you?

[Tubby]

I read the quality score differently

Quality scores listed
•Avoid hidden text or hidden links.
•Don't use cloaking or sneaky redirects.
•Don't send automated queries to Google.
•Don't load pages with irrelevant keywords.
•Don't create multiple pages, subdomains, or domains with substantially duplicate content.
•Don't create pages with malicious behavior, such as phishing or installing viruses, trojans, or other badware.
•Avoid "doorway" pages created just for search engines, or other "cookie cutter" approaches such as affiliate programs with little or no original content.
•If your site participates in an affiliate program, make sure that your site adds value. Provide unique and relevant content that gives users a reason to visit your site first.


These are negative scores - NOT POSITIVE all designed to manipulate unfairly

Adwords is a paid service - Totally different ball game.

You are letting your imagination run away with you my old mate, You have a great cause, and many web site owners will follow your lead towards a better Internet. But My opinion is google will not take sides in what is primarily user choice

Believing that google will give a plus value to any web page because it approves of it, is about the same as believing there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.

[Tubby]

On the topic of 'the spectrum of quality': At some central point on the spectrum the average web site sits. Removing the crap leaves the spectrum complete but the sites sitting in the middle are a just little bit better quality.

For every site that is crap, excellence sits on the other side of the spectrum.

If Google does have aims to increase the quality of sites it presents in a search result, it merely needs to ditch the crap. Google uses its search engine algorithms to 'make visible' sites that reach the public eye with no merit, it does this by detecting strategies that give a false impression of public opinion. Nobody has ever shown me a site that google promotes without public or webmaster recommendations as the basic value determinant.

To convince me otherwise you will need to personally confront me with a baseball bat and argue from a more physical perspective. This option might be fraught with unknowns. so It may well be best to accept that this is my personal opinion, and not argue with it.

Unless you have some demonstrative examples.

[weegillis]

Looking at it from the negative...

How can any SE give a quality score to a site without pigeon holing it or adding it to a special heap for further 'normative testing' to be sure it meets all the other requirements, as well? Just because it passes accessibility doesn't mean it conforms to any of the rest of the SE guidelines. This is not a for sure measurement, by any length.

[Webnauts]

I would suggest that you all read here Landing Page and Site Quality Guidelines - AdWords Help and lets take the discussion from there.

I am sure there is a lot to be said, but I just wanted to start with this example and then discuss how far or so easy Google can set quality goals.

[Tubby]

No ! I certainly will not be searching adwords help. .

AdWords is a totally different Ballgame.

I do not see any connection between what google AdWords has to do with search results.
Google can demand anything it likes from pages it places adverts on - or sites that it delivers pay per click traffic to.

If your poll was not about 'google search' results you should have mentioned it earlier.. I presumed you would have chosen the sub forum dedicated to adsense or AdWords had the topic been either of those.

[Tubby]

Do you want me to move this thread to the appropriate sub forum so you do not confuse members..

There is a subforum dedicated to AdSense/AdWords subjects.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

No ! I certainly will not be searching adwords help. .

AdWords is a totally different Ballgame.

I do not see any connection between what google AdWords has to do with search results.
Google can demand anything it likes from pages it places adverts on - or sites that it delivers pay per click traffic to.

If your poll was not about 'google search' results you should have mentioned it earlier.. I presumed you would have chosen the sub forum dedicated to adsense or AdWords had the topic been either of those.

Two of their AdWords Quality Guidelines:

• Avoid excessive use of pop-ups, pop-unders, and other obtrusive elements throughout your site.
• Make sure that your landing page loads quickly. Learn ways to improve your load time.

What are those quidelines? For search results? For sure not. They are about web sites quality. Where is the problem for setting such scores with the organic search?

Anyway, I think we will not get anywhere here, so you can close the thread, or move it to the AdWords sub-forum, or even to the Quarantine.

I will unsubscribe now from the thread, as I am very confident that I posted these news at the wrong place.

If the thread continues, I wish you all a nice discussion.

[crankydave]

I don't particulary like the way the choices were phrased (extremes) but I chose the one closest to my opinion.

I don't see how it affects relevancy to a query. Accesibility does not change the relevance of a page/site unless perhaps it's about that subject matter or perhaps touts itself as such.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

I don't particulary like the way the choices were phrased (extremes) but I chose the one closest to my opinion.

I don't see how it affects relevancy to a query. Accesibility does not change the relevance of a page/site unless perhaps it's about that subject matter or perhaps touts itself as such.

Dave

Before I go, it is not about relevancy Dave. It is about Google providing in the search quality web pages/sites. Pages or sites that also accommodate users with disabilities.

Anyway, looks like Google announcing an "Accessibility Mission" it must be BS, since I cannot explain that otherwise if they have no intention to make that step.

Another Google bla, bla?

Nevermind.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Before I go, it is not about relevancy Dave. It is about Google providing in the search quality web pages/sites. Pages or sites that also accommodate users with disabilities.

Anyway, looks like Google announcing an "Accessibility Mission" it must be BS, since I cannot explain that otherwise if they have no intention to make that step.

Disagree John. It's all about relevancy. That is the #1 factor. Which page(s) are most relevant for a query. Name a known organic search metric that does not make a page/site more relevant to a query.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by crankydave

Disagree John. It's all about relevancy. That is the #1 factor. Which page(s) are most relevant for a query. Name a known organic search metric that does not make a page/site more relevant to a query.

Dave

Dave, I would appreciate if you explain me what does Google mean with "Accessibility Mission". If you can answer me this question, all my questions on this topic will be answered, and I will be very happy.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Dave, I would appreciate if you explain me what does Google mean with "Accessibility Mission". If you can answer me this question, all my questions on this topic will be answered, and I will be very happy.

For me, I think the make it pretty clear.

They continue to develope things to make the information they find more accessible to more people. A very good thing IMO. Just take a look at all the things they've already developed.

Official Google Blog: A new home for accessibility at Google

But what it doesn't mean, to me, is that somehow a page/site becomes more relevant for a query just because it is more accessible except when it relevant to the query itself.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Now I see. They are making their own services accessible.

Google’s accessibility mission

Information access is at the core of Google’s mission – to make the world’s information universally accessible and useful. That’s why in addition to crawling, indexing and ranking billions of websites, images, videos and other content, we also work to make that content available in all languages and in accessible formats.

We want to make information available to everyone, and that includes people with disabilities, such as blindness, visual impairment, color deficiency, deafness, hearing loss and limited dexterity. We’ve found that providing alternative access modes like keyboard shortcuts, captions, high-contrast views and text-to-speech technology helps everyone, not just people with disabilities. For example, keyboard shortcuts help power users get things done more quickly without using a mouse, speech-to-text technology enables people to skim and search audio content, and custom product themes give people more opportunities to personalize.

Finally! Great move Google.

You remember Dave the discussions we had about that some years back?

[crankydave]

Yep, sure do John.

I agree John. Making information more accessible to those with disabilities is a good thing for anyone who does it.

Dave

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

To convince me otherwise you will need to personally confront me with a baseball bat and argue from a more physical perspective. This option might be fraught with unknowns. so It may well be best to accept that this is my personal opinion, and not argue with it.

Unless you have some demonstrative examples.

I am not sure if I understand. Do you mean something like this? Google Accessible Search

Or something like this? http://www.seoconsultants.com/seo/guide/

[weegillis]

To the question in your poll, John, I answered "Don't know."

To the fact that Google is moving closer to full compliance with WAI guidelines I can only say this is a good thing that could have a very positive spin off effect on the entire web. Everybody wins.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weegillis

To the question in your poll, John, I answered "Don't know."

To the fact that Google is moving closer to full compliance with WAI guidelines I can only say this is a good thing that could have a very positive spin off effect on the entire web. Everybody wins.

Oh, I think I was not clear. I did not mean full WAI compliance.

But Section 508 or WAI A would be possible. Don't you think? Or do you think that Google would have difficulties to implement? Or even at some point to be able to check web sites for those requirements?

[Doc]

Would it not be feasible for Google (or any other SE) to tailor their search page with the ability for a user to request only pages that are WAI compliant (or some subset of compliance)? The SE could then filter the sites that are compliant to that degree, and display those first (or only). That would seem like a good half-step to their having to screen for compliance on all pages immediately, and would be able to be implemented relatively easily, for some period of time during which all sites (or at least those that would make the effort) have an opportunity to bring themselves into comliance.

If they're really committed to pushing for accessibility, then to me, this would seem like a good path to follow. It's not as though they've ever been bashful about trying to bully folks into doing something.

[inertia]

Would it not be feasible for Google (or any other SE) to tailor their search page with the ability for a user to request only pages that are WAI compliant (or some subset of compliance)? The SE could then filter the sites that are compliant to that degree, and display those first (or only).

My thoughts exactly. At the moment the accessible search which you posted john, doesnt contain any changes in rankings, only display. Why couldnt google run with something like that and just create a search engine specifically engineered to deliver accessible websites? Or how about they develop an aditional search parameter and have that as an option in your search settings?

As far as adjusting the main search results which everyone sees, i dont see that happening at all. Its too crusade like for google to risk.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Oh, I think I was not clear. I did not mean full WAI compliance.

But Section 508 or WAI A would be possible. Don't you think? Or do you think that Google would have difficulties to implement? Or even at some point to be able to check web sites for those requirements?

Compliance on any level is still going to take some moxy. Particularly when we consider where the content that goes into a SERP is derived from -- the pages themselves. Google can construct perfectly valid, AAA page templates, but once the content from millions of pages gets strewn into the results, there will be all kinds of flags going up. This is something of a barrier to compliance, the way I see it. Google (or any SE) will have their hands full creating the testing engines needed to measure compliance, and rewrite engines to convert special characters to match the document encoding and repair other deficiencies pre-flight.

They would also need the same testing engines to 'grade' webpages, or developers would need in earnest to go to Cynthia Says or whatever and actually have their pages pass and earn a timestamped badge that would need to be renewed with every change to the document. A validation and compliance meta tag or RDF label might help the cause, but who wants to be at the thick end of that wedge?

[crankydave]

What's to prevent Google from developing another app by which they deliver pages in a more "accessible" manner controling the level of accessibility they're comfortable with and keep searchers on Google longer?

Sounds rather "Googly" to me.

Dave

[morestar]

I think if the world escapes it's wrath that of course eventually rankings will be affected by accessibility factors. I think we all believe accessibility affects rankings to some degree or another don't we? In a sense accessibility is closely related to seo.

when we explain seo we describe things like alt and title attributes in image tags. people with disabilities can understand the meaning of an image by the use of those attributes.

So if Google wants to make the world's information universally accessible we would have to code by a universal standard. What is the Standard?

W3C or Google?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by morestar

I think if the world escapes it's wrath that of course eventually rankings will be affected by accessibility factors. I think we all believe accessibility affects rankings to some degree or another don't we? In a sense accessibility is closely related to seo.

when we explain seo we describe things like alt and title attributes in image tags. people with disabilities can understand the meaning of an image by the use of those attributes.

So if Google wants to make the world's information universally accessible we would have to code by a universal standard. What is the Standard?

W3C or Google?

Let's hope it's W3C. Google changes its mind too much. Besides which, they already hold more power over the internet than is healthy, IMO.

[deepsand]

Voted "maybe," and that is for conditional usage.

I.e., if the Browser Agent can be identified as employing Accessibility features, then such may be used for such session.

Under other conditions, its use would be illogical.

[morestar]

I think they work together, W3C and Google.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by crankydave

What's to prevent Google from developing another app by which they deliver pages in a more "accessible" manner controling the level of accessibility they're comfortable with and keep searchers on Google longer?

Sounds rather "Googly" to me.

Dave

User adjusted accessibility... Definitely a workable solution, imho, especially if JAWS, et al can flip the switches (automatically or by user settings). The whole range of scenarios could be set once in the user agent, and the user would be able to dictate the serp read out.

Implemented web wide through common libraries would help it gain in use, too. Good point, crankydave.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by inertia

My thoughts exactly. At the moment the accessible search which you posted john, doesnt contain any changes in rankings, only display. Why couldnt google run with something like that and just create a search engine specifically engineered to deliver accessible websites? Or how about they develop an aditional search parameter and have that as an option in your search settings?

As far as adjusting the main search results which everyone sees, i dont see that happening at all. Its too crusade like for google to risk.

I do see rankings differences in the accessible search of Google. I am not very aware about the factors though. I think they most probably weight the use of the alt attribute.

To clarify again, I did not say that accessibilty is a ranking factor or so ever. I just setup a poll asking: Will Accessibility become a site quality score for Google?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Doc

Would it not be feasible for Google (or any other SE) to tailor their search page with the ability for a user to request only pages that are WAI compliant (or some subset of compliance)? The SE could then filter the sites that are compliant to that degree, and display those first (or only). That would seem like a good half-step to their having to screen for compliance on all pages immediately, and would be able to be implemented relatively easily, for some period of time during which all sites (or at least those that would make the effort) have an opportunity to bring themselves into comliance.

If they're really committed to pushing for accessibility, then to me, this would seem like a good path to follow. It's not as though they've ever been bashful about trying to bully folks into doing something.

Great post Doc!!! I will make sure that some guys who are responsible for all this at Google that will read this post. It make great sense.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Compliance on any level is still going to take some moxy. Particularly when we consider where the content that goes into a SERP is derived from -- the pages themselves. Google can construct perfectly valid, AAA page templates, but once the content from millions of pages gets strewn into the results, there will be all kinds of flags going up. This is something of a barrier to compliance, the way I see it. Google (or any SE) will have their hands full creating the testing engines needed to measure compliance, and rewrite engines to convert special characters to match the document encoding and repair other deficiencies pre-flight.

They would also need the same testing engines to 'grade' webpages, or developers would need in earnest to go to Cynthia Says or whatever and actually have their pages pass and earn a timestamped badge that would need to be renewed with every change to the document. A validation and compliance meta tag or RDF label might help the cause, but who wants to be at the thick end of that wedge?

I do not see any difficulty at all for software engineers to plugin to their crawler some features like the one of WebAim. And I do not see any need of adding meta tags or rdfa features, as those can be misleading. How many sites out there have the W3C labels claiming that are valid or accessible?

[weegillis]

Webnauts: "Trust but verify." This is why there would need to be a time stamp on the badge that must have a time frame later than the lastModified HTTP response, much like a seal on a cargo trailer. If the stamp is valid (later than) the page can bypass SE testing and move into the crawl phase.

If not, then the badge would be ignored and the page would go into the 'not confirmed accessible' queue and wait it's turn for additional testing / verification. Of course, this would delay the crawl, so developers would get on board quickly if they knew there was value.

[astro]

Originally Posted by morestar

I think they work together, W3C and Google.

I voted Maybe.

Not so sure Google works with anyone. I gave up the accessibility racket when I questioned if The top W3C accessibility whizzos were found to be on the payroll of corporate America as "Consultants"

What I actually asked when I participated in the W3C accessibility forum, was " Is Dracula now in charge of the blood banks?"..........not ever so popular with some! (I was on there as Ten-20) But then Dale Carnegie was never required reading in our house as a child.

I question the accessibility issues with Google as long as there is an "undue burden" get out clause for businesses. Brand leaders of products with inaccessible web sites could be excluded from relevant search results if accessibility becomes an issue with Google. Gap made a decision years ago that they would not go "accessible" saying it was not their market place.......I leave you to draw your own conclusions here!

The W3C did assist the rumour it mattered in SEO to put pressure to make the web accessible. I will always question validity of opinion whilst big business pays the expert's rent.

Off to hide from the MIB

/astro

[morestar]

Originally Posted by astro

I voted Maybe.

Not so sure Google works with anyone. I gave up the accessibility racket when I questioned if The top W3C accessibility whizzos were found to be on the payroll of corporate America as "Consultants"

Why?

Originally Posted by astro

Off to hide from the MIB

We can find you wherever you are !!


Seriously why?

[astro]

It is a long story but in a nutshell, I made a post on W3C accessibility forum questioning things when Yahoo were in the frame for a huge court action over accessibility and ADA section 503 (which basically is a guide line for Federal sites, but offered as a standard for corporate web sites) The action was taken on behalf of the Blind in America. Yahoo's answer was to employ the "experts" who were also it's main critics. Suddenly requirements and acceptable practices were diluted to accommodate corporate America. I felt this compromised principles for money.

I made a post asking if Dracula now ran the blood bank, it was not a popular post amongst those experts employed by the American corporate world who were staring at massive bills to totally redesign their web presence and marketing strategies. The Guardian Newspaper spotted it and I was called by a guy who said he edited an online Magazine for some church. He neglected to say he also wrote for the Guardian newspaper. I was quoted in a feature as one of the UK's experts....I resented this and was being stroked for a very controversial quote.......never mind, we both knew and believed it anyway, just could not put it into print.

It needs to be appreciated in those days it was common thinking that the world wide web stretched all the way from the west coast of America to the East coast of America, the rest of the world was known as Acidrainia therefore not important. I do acknowledge this thinking has changed these days.

I respected Gap in their decision, it was a brave thing to do in light of court actions everywhere, but I did not agree with the thinking behind the decision. The Olympic site just got sued successfully by one blind Australian. The Blind lady winner of the 100 metres Paralympic medal was unable to read of her success online because whilst she could surf the net the official site was inaccessible as well.

The Internet and the world wide web as well as it's technologies are driven by industrial might and commerce. As long as that is the case and I see no way of changing it, challenged individuals for whatever reason will not have their wishes listened to.

The general thinking was (and so very wrong in concept)

Disabled = Poor = No market = Not worth the effort.

I have no reason to believe this will change in the foreseeable future, just a lip service to the problem.

Hence my vote was an optimistic Maybe!!

/astro

[morestar]

OK I see, so in essence you're all for accessibility...but don't really see it changing too much in the near future in corporate websites...

That's an interesting story about the blind Olympic winner...very true - that would be a bit sad not being able to check yourself out on the official site BUT be able to do so on other sites that take accessibility into mind.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by morestar

OK I see, so in essence you're all for accessibility...but don't really see it changing too much in the near future in corporate websites...

Whatever our feelings or thoughts may be on the subject of accessibility is not in question here, Google's are. Let's stay with the OP and this poll.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by Tubby

No ! I certainly will not be searching adwords help. .

AdWords is a totally different Ballgame.

I do not see any connection between what google AdWords has to do with search results.
Google can demand anything it likes from pages it places adverts on - or sites that it delivers pay per click traffic to.

If your poll was not about 'google search' results you should have mentioned it earlier.. I presumed you would have chosen the sub forum dedicated to adsense or AdWords had the topic been either of those.

Well it is great that you did not move the thread to a sub forum. And that because one of the two AdWords quaility factors I mentioned above, is now a factor for the organic search results.

Maybe it was one of my bloody predictions again, but here is the confirmation that I was right. Just to avoid any misunderstandings.

Site Speed, Google’s Next Ranking Factor

Enjoy the news.