Archive for December, 2006

Wheelchair Ramps for the Web?

December 21, 2006

Anyone who’s run across my articles online is likely to know that one of my pet subjects is accessible web design.

Most conversations where the topic of disability access on the internet rears its head will usually go something like this:

FP: “Accessible web design? What? Like wheelchair access or something?”
IG: “No (you foolish person), I’m actually talking about blind or partially sighted web users.”
FP: “Blind web users? How the hell do they see what’s on the screen?”
IG: “They can’t.  They’re blind, remember? They use Braille keyboards and software which reads a site’s content out loud so they can hear it.”
FP: “You’re winding me up.”
IG: “Not at all. Look it up online. The best known screen reader is called JAWS.”
FP: “Stop taking the p*ss. Jaws is that bloke out of that Bond film.”

Things normally deteriorate rapidly at this stage, as most people who know me are aware that I’m prone to the occasional wind-up such as sending my brother in law hunting up and down Colchester high street in search of the “Viking Helmet Shop” after making a rather convincing case at a party the previous night.

But that is another story…

In any case, whilst wheelchair access for the web is certainly a novel idea, the example above does illustrate the general public’s level of ignorance with regards to disability access on the internet or the available technologies to aid disabled web users. 

Let me get this straight; our technology has put a man on the moon (allegedly), given us enough nuclear weapons to destroy humanity several times over and produced the USB powered coffee warming plate, yet you doubt the existence of a simple piece of software which is able to read written text out loud?

Worse still, many internet professionals are still largely unaware of accessible web design standards or choose to simply ignore them since they are seen as too much hassle and an unnecessary expense during site development.
All in all this is a sad state of affairs, especially in light of the many promotional advantages properly implemented accessibility brings with it.

I recently found myself in a chat forum where someone was spouting on about the complete and utter irrelevance of disability access standards since blind internet users only account for, as he put it, ‘an infinitely small and completely unimportant percentage of total users’.

Sometimes I do ask myself whether ignorance is truly bliss, since the individual in question seemed anything but blissful.

Ok, to be fair, the disabled do represent a very small proportion of total web users, but this is not exactly a good excuse to totally ignore them, especially as every other aspect of society has to make provision to give the same levels of access regardless of a person’s disability.

If this is not a good enough excuse to make provisions, there’s always the comparatively little known fact that search engine spiders sent out by Google, MSN, YAHOO and others will view a web site in much the same way a blind visitor’s text only browser would and will therefore find the task far easier if disability access provisions have been made.
So… if you, as a web designer, ignore the needs of blind internet users you’re making a your own life difficult where web promotion is concerned.

I love the smell of poetic justice in the morning.

Furthermore, a recent court case launched by the National Federation of the Blind against U.S. online retailer Target.com has highlighted the fact that accessible web design can no longer be ignored by web-based businesses.

Should you want further information about disability access on the web, you can visit the World Wide Web Consortium site’s ’Web Accessibility Initiative‘ section.
The IceGiant web site’s article section also contains further reading material on the topic of Web Accessibility.

But enough of this.
It’s getting late and I have to talk to my brother in law about Bonsai Volcanoes.

Food for thought?
I think so.

How to get it wrong with article marketing

December 10, 2006

Oh my!

Where to start with this one…

As a buzzword, the term article marketing has gained no end of momentum over the past couple of years or so.
Much like an avalanche, things started in a very gradual manner a few years ago with a handful of clued-up writers providing valuable information to less knowledgeable individuals whilst craftily promoting their own web sites in the process.
Blinder!

Not only did these articles get spread all over the web and provide endless sources of fresh traffic to their author’s site(s), each article would also act as an inbound link to add to their overall link popularity score.
Double Blinder!

During the early part of 2005, the movement had finally gathered enough momentum to attract the attention of the mainstream promotion crowd, which promptly leapt upon the bandwagon with much gusto.
The result was a growing torrent of badly written (yet still mainly informative) articles joining the rest on its journey down internet mountain.

By itself, this would have been easily sustainable, had it not been for the appearance on the scene of the sort of monosyllabic slack-lipper who is incapable of writing even a bad article.
Aided and abetted by shoddy pieces of software* promising to ‘Rewrite Articles Automatically’ to produce original content, these idiots are flooding the web with a barrage of toot which is not even remotely readable - in the full expectation of getting a huge number of inbound links to boost their site’s standing with the major search engines.

Here’s a quick newsflash: “Keep on waiting for those inbound links boys and girls, because nobody in their right mind will want to embarrass themselves by subjecting his or her visitors to the kind of incomprehensible waste you’re producing.”
“Oh, and if you’re relying on automatic links, these aren’t really worth anything much in the greater scheme of things, so you’re wasting your time there as well.”

A well written, authoritative article will still get far more exposure and expert standing than an entire week’s worth of automatic output.
If software could write coherent articles, authors and journalists would be out of business.
The last time I looked, they were still honourable (sort of) and well paying professions. 

*These programs rely mainly on substituting synonyms and jumbling the original’s grammar to produce something ‘original’.
On a readability and comprehensibility scale from 1 to 10 they score somewhere around minus 267.

Now, as this avalanche is nearing the unsuspecting village at the valley’s bottom, it is a mess of blinding spray, sticks, boulders and other assorted detritus which hits the unsuspecting web-mountain folk full in the face and buries them under a heap of meaningless junk, to suffocate slowly amongst the nonsense and grammatical errors whilst searching for something worthwhile.

Thank heaven for Alpine Rescue in the form of Social Networks like Digg and Delicious which allow users to rescue worthwhile efforts leaving the rest buried under a pile of their bretheren.

Food for thought?
Damn Right!