4 ms·

I think only Google can fix this. They need to more heavily penalize your page rank if your accessibility score is low. The 5 things the author lists are so sim

I think only Google can fix this. They need to more heavily penalize your page rank if your accessibility score is low. The 5 things the author lists are so simple. How much effort is it not to auto-play videos? Compare that to the effort web devs put into SEO tricks which the web devs aren't even sure works.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
The problem with penalizing things outside of relevance is that you're just gimping the quality of the search results. That something loads faster or has better support for blind people or renders better on my iPad doesn't mean that it's more relevant to my search. I'll wait 30 seconds longer for a webpage to load and stomach its crappy design if it has more accurate and relevant content, so I don't think it makes sense for Google to throw its weight around like this. I mean, we're all on HN yet it's atrocious on my smartphone. And <table> spam probably sucks for screen readers. Doesn't mean something you're not looking for should rank above it just because you can read that unwanted content easier if you're blind. Ideally you could opt in to additional weights like "I'm on a slow connection" and "blind-friendly results first please".
- turbonaut 6y ago
  Whilst it may not be relevant to you, I think part of this is that Google are in a position to incentivise firms to better serve users with disabilities. If I am penalised not for relevance but for accessibility then I fix the accessibility. I am then both relevant and accessible and the world is a better place.
  - dbetteridge 6y ago
    Which is fine if the pages are receiving updates, but a lot of content exists on pages they are no longer updated and never will be again. We shouldn't lose that content which can still be very relevant just because they're not following the current trend of constant website updates.
    - appleiigs 6y ago
      Old relevant content will still be there. However, content that is relevant and accessible will be higher.
    - tesseract 6y ago
      For better or worse (in my opinion, worse) recent iterations of the Google algorithm already severely penalize, or even drop, static pages that have not been recently updated. I suspect it's a big factor in making small academic and personal websites significantly harder to find than they were in the past.
    - the_other 6y ago
      Many current website trends (overlays, popups, animated/video advertising, sticky video players) make content less accessible even for people with mainstream access requirements.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > That something loads faster or has better support for blind people or renders better on my iPad doesn't mean that it's more relevant to my search. To a blind person, whether a website works well with a screen reader is extremely relevant to their search. Why are their needs less important than yours? > Ideally you could opt in to additional weights like "I'm on a slow connection" and "blind-friendly results first please". This just makes it easier for websites to bloat up or ignore accessibility. I have no issue with search engines penalizing websites to encourage them to take accessibility seriously.
- appleiigs 6y ago
  It will be improving the quality of search to blind users - their search results matter too. It will be improving the quality of search for non-blind users because websites will be structured better for Googlebot. Any gimping will be temporary as the websites rush to comply. The gimping can be non-existent if Google simply announces ahead of time that accessibility will weigh more heavily. That'll give devs time to adjust. Look how Google pushed the adoption of HTTPS.
- watwut 6y ago
  Google already does that with amp and god knows what else.
- iudqnolq 6y ago
  Interesting how you presume that no one like you is blind. Though I think your use of "gimping" might be answer enough.
the_other 6y ago
Google will not fix this. They will only monetise your trust in them.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
The 'effort' is that being an annoying arsehole grabs more attention and makes more money; it's a choice, not a lack of effort.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

The problem with penalizing things outside of relevance is that you're just gimping the quality of the search results. That something loads faster or has better support for blind people or renders better on my iPad doesn't mean that it's more relevant to my search. I'll wait 30 seconds longer for a webpage to load and stomach its crappy design if it has more accurate and relevant content, so I don't think it makes sense for Google to throw its weight around like this. I mean, we're all on HN yet it's atrocious on my smartphone. And <table> spam probably sucks for screen readers. Doesn't mean something you're not looking for should rank above it just because you can read that unwanted content easier if you're blind. Ideally you could opt in to additional weights like "I'm on a slow connection" and "blind-friendly results first please".

turbonaut 6y ago
Whilst it may not be relevant to you, I think part of this is that Google are in a position to incentivise firms to better serve users with disabilities. If I am penalised not for relevance but for accessibility then I fix the accessibility. I am then both relevant and accessible and the world is a better place.
- dbetteridge 6y ago
  Which is fine if the pages are receiving updates, but a lot of content exists on pages they are no longer updated and never will be again. We shouldn't lose that content which can still be very relevant just because they're not following the current trend of constant website updates.
  - appleiigs 6y ago
    Old relevant content will still be there. However, content that is relevant and accessible will be higher.
  - tesseract 6y ago
    For better or worse (in my opinion, worse) recent iterations of the Google algorithm already severely penalize, or even drop, static pages that have not been recently updated. I suspect it's a big factor in making small academic and personal websites significantly harder to find than they were in the past.
  - the_other 6y ago
    Many current website trends (overlays, popups, animated/video advertising, sticky video players) make content less accessible even for people with mainstream access requirements.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
> That something loads faster or has better support for blind people or renders better on my iPad doesn't mean that it's more relevant to my search. To a blind person, whether a website works well with a screen reader is extremely relevant to their search. Why are their needs less important than yours? > Ideally you could opt in to additional weights like "I'm on a slow connection" and "blind-friendly results first please". This just makes it easier for websites to bloat up or ignore accessibility. I have no issue with search engines penalizing websites to encourage them to take accessibility seriously.
appleiigs 6y ago
It will be improving the quality of search to blind users - their search results matter too. It will be improving the quality of search for non-blind users because websites will be structured better for Googlebot. Any gimping will be temporary as the websites rush to comply. The gimping can be non-existent if Google simply announces ahead of time that accessibility will weigh more heavily. That'll give devs time to adjust. Look how Google pushed the adoption of HTTPS.
watwut 6y ago
Google already does that with amp and god knows what else.
iudqnolq 6y ago
Interesting how you presume that no one like you is blind. Though I think your use of "gimping" might be answer enough.

the_other 6y ago

Google will not fix this. They will only monetise your trust in them.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

The 'effort' is that being an annoying arsehole grabs more attention and makes more money; it's a choice, not a lack of effort.