-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Site Search Needs Attention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #091
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060913-085905
Essentials: Users that land at your website knowing you have what they're looking for, don't always hit the best page. They can usually tell within a blink of an eye that they aren't quite at the right place, and if they don't hit the back button because they are worried about navigating your site, they often turn to your site search engine. If you don't analyze your site search queries, it is time to pay attention. The number of queries may far exceed the number of searches for your keywords in the Web search engines.
Although the estimates may be high, site search use is relatively common. If you offer it, make sure it works. The number of searchers that are savvy enough to use the advanced syntax at search engines are tiny, and it is more likely that you are frustrating users trying to find what they believe you have. Pleasing these users is a humongous opportunity considering the investment of time, energy and financial means to attract the visit in the first place.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Google Search For The Visually Impaired
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #078
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://news.techwhack.com/4090/search-engine-for-the-blind/
Essentials: It has long been known that search engines will favor pages when they detect good usability factors, such as limiting rankings of pages with excessive linking. Continuing this work, Google is working on perfecting search for the blind and visually impaired by analyzing the simplicity of page layout and labeling of information that perform well in screen readers.
"You get a lot of conflicting signals," reports T.V. Raman of Google, a scientist formerly with IBM Research. This is particularly true when too much information is packed into pages, and graphics are used. Photos should have captions and such labels would not be used to stuff keywords.
With eight million visually impaired (just in the US), and an additional three million color blind, the audience is significant. Target was recently sued by screen reader users for lacking ALT attributes of images that displayed sale price information that went generally unnoticed by visually impaired users.
Raman went on to say that Google would ideally better detect and measure accessibility so as to provide custom personalized search taking into account specific disabilities such as color-blindness, poor visibility or complete blindness. Also, a "less busy interface" for search was noted for senior citizens.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Lawsuit Hits Target
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #038
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6038123.html
Essentials: Big brands should learn to deal with usability issues concerning visually impaired users, or face potential lawsuits. In terms of Search Engine Optimization, the ramifications of stuffing alt tags should be crystal clear. The tag is vital for visually impaired users, it is a requirement under XHTML and it just might get you in trouble when you neglect it. Visually impaired users rely on alt text to make purchases, and you would never want to misrepresent purchase information to a blind user.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Search Usability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #030
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060109/full/060109-13.html
Essentials: Surprisingly little time is required for a first impression about webpage quality. Far less time, in fact, than the scientists assumed would be the case. This study shows users can correctly assess website design quality using just a fraction of a second (50-milliseconds). Search engine visitors are pointed out as particularly important for making a positive first impression, because search users will navigate back to results when displeased.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Search Usability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #030
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
Hello everyone,
You get only one chance to make a first impression. Benefit from what psychologists call the 'halo effect' after a positive first impression. We think Search Usability is important enough to get its own SearchReturn thread line. Today's Essential News item on Search Usability is a Nature study with key findings.
Stay tuned.
-SearchReturn
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Search Usability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #014
New Discussion
From: SearchReturn <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.alistapart.com:80/articles/accessibilityseo
Essentials: When reading this post, rather than think of search engines as access challenged, think of them as rewarding your accessible design with better rankings. Search engines want to refer search users to sites where they can have some measure of assurance the site will display properly.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Search Usability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #008
New Discussion
From: Digest <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=418857
Essentials: Usability experts ponder the rise of search, and the effect on navigation needs.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: You Can't Use What You Can't Find
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #007
New Discussion
From: Digest <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/ambientfindability
Essentials: Book excerpt with rational thinking on our industry and how it fits into the disciplines of design and usability. "Together with form and function, findability is a required element of good design and engineering."
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: Flock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #004
New Discussion
From: Digest <digest@searchreturn.com>
http://www.searchreturn.com/digest/refs004.shtml
Essentials: New browser that aims to change the Web experience.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> TOPIC: POWERFUL POSITION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted in SearchReturn #001
New Discussion
From: Digest <digest@searchreturn.com>
A Cornell University study was reported on in Jakob Nielsen's latest Alertbox, and is now making the rounds on search industry blogs. Highly similar to the eye-tracking study, (indeed using eye-tracking technology), the findings are not exactly surprising as a result. A unique approach is what makes this a compelling and timely study.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/defaults.html
Of course, the top position gets the most clicks, but the quality of the listings do seem to count. The difference can be seen when the top two positions are switched without the user being aware of the manipulation. The study showed the original number one position, (placed as number two in the switched results), was clicked at a rate with a 4% increase over the original number two listing.
This may be a result of keyword appearance in listing titles (and other key factors) that go into a top ranking which qualify for both the position and click simultaneously. While it stands to reason keywords appear in number two, number one may be more concise in approach to keyword usage more often than number two. That's a complete generalization regarding typical result sets.
Comment? mailto:digest@searchreturn.com?subject=SearchUsability
Back | Top |
"I also like SearchReturn℠, with its old-school look and feel, and the intelligent posts." -Andrew Goodman
SearchReturn readers get carefully selected search engine news and information, actionable marketing tips and expert advice with site owner Detlev Johnson.
"Former moderator of the famed I-Search mailing list, Detlef jumped back into the world of search mailing lists by launching I-Search last year."
-Danny Sullivan