A couple years ago, I wrote an article addressing the differences between working in a search engine friendly manner and working on search engine optimization. That article talked extensively about what is included in optimization which is not necessarily a part of being search engine friendly.

Shari Thurow, a well-respected researcher in the search engine optimization and usability realm, suggested that separating the two concepts is, in fact, ridiculous.

Well, that may be. However, I think that it’s crucial to break a task into parts if you want to gain a thorough understanding of the whole. Search engine marketing is an excellent example of a whole which is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

As I see it, building a search engine friendly site is one of the first stages of best practice search marketing. The adage “if you build it, they will come” fails to hold, however: a site which is constructed merely to be search engine friendly will gain little to no traffic.

Being part of the process

Being search engine friendly is a part of the process of search engine optimization; which is, itself, a part of the process of search engine marketing. In addition to these two aspects, search engine marketing may also include pay-per-click advertising, print advertising, link building and social media participation. Search engine marketing is a large area, and very, very few people are expert in all aspects. I’m certainly not.

From a marketing standpoint, what parts of this marketing whole are necessary for your business to succeed is going to vary radically depending on your industry and the way your business intersects with the internet. It will also depend on your definition of success. If you’re looking to maximize growth, you’ll probably want to be investing in all aspects of marketing.

So I’m arguing that search marketing, while clearly a practice in which the parts of the whole are highly interwoven and carry clear dependencies on each other, can nonetheless be separated into it’s component parts for a variety of reasons, including for the sake of discussion.

Now let me take this a step further. Not only is it possible to separate search engine marketing into separate aspects for discussion, it’s valuable.

If you want to understand the interactions between the different aspects of a task, it’s important to have some information about all parts. In this context, it’s necessary to treat the whole of search engine marketing in a given discussion. However, when you want to understand the details of a specific task, it’s important to stay focused on your part of that task.

It’s necessary for practitioners in search engine marketing to know, in general, what the impact their work will be on all aspects of the marketing campaign. It is crucial for practitioners in search marketing to know, in detail, exactly how to perform their own tasks in the best possible manner for their clients. It’s important to treat an area of expertise specifically. Talking through the nature of that area; comparing and contrasting it to other related areas; considering the specific nature of tasks within that area of expertise: these are all ways of better defining and refining knowledge on a specific subject.

Why does this matter?

It doesn’t, really. It’s all semantics. Search engine optimization is the commonly known term, and it frequently is understood to encapsulate search engine marketing. Or the other way around. The industries around search engines and marketing (and just about anything internet) are young, and the vocabularies aren’t really all the firmly established. As a result, some people have a very firm opinion of what a given term means which may not always coincide with others definitions.

Well, that’s why we write about it. We’re all hoping that our definitions will ultimately win.

A little while ago, while working on a site built by another developer, I came across this rather interesting example of how to use custom fields badly in a WordPress theme (abbreviated for, well, brevity):

(The original also did this for meta keywords and meta descriptions — but the demonstration of this “logic” only requires one field.)

 
<? if (is_front_page()) { ?>
	<title>Handwritten title</title>
<? } elseif (is_page("page-name")) { ?>
	<title><?= get_post_meta(334, 'meta_title', TRUE); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<? } elseif (is_page("page-name-2")) { ?>
	<title><?= get_post_meta(383, 'meta_title', TRUE); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<? } elseif (is_page("page-name-3")) { ?>
	<title><?= get_post_meta(381, 'meta_title', TRUE); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<? } elseif (is_page("page-name-4")) { ?>
	<title><?= get_post_meta(383, 'meta_title', TRUE); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<? } elseif (is_page("page-name-5")) { ?>
	<title><?= get_post_meta(387, 'meta_title', TRUE); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<? } ?>

And so on. For approximately 40 separate pages. It made my brain hurt. For reference, the exact same thing — for all pages on the site — could have been accomplished (with better fallback conditions, in fact) with this code:

 
<?php if (get_post_meta($wp_query->post->ID, 'meta_title', true)=="" && is_page() ) { ?>
	<title><? wp_title('|', true, 'right'); ?> <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<?php } else { ?>
	<title><?php echo stripslashes(get_post_meta($wp_query->post->ID, 'meta_title', true)); ?> | <? bloginfo('name'); ?></title>
<?php } ?>

Now, the original code may actually look cleaner — it does, after all, have fewer functions and fewer variables. However, the second example is a hell of a lot more maintainable.

If you add a new page to the site in the first example, you have to:

1. Create the new page.
2. Add a custom field with the title.
3. Check the new page’s ID.
4. Find the theme file which contains the meta data references.
5. Add a new line in the elseif loops which references your new page first by slug and then by ID

With the second example, you simply:

1. Create the new page.
2. Add a custom field with the title.

No coding, no PHP, no editing themes — it just works. Well, isn’t that handy? This is just basic good coding practice: make your code reusable. There’s absolutely no reason to code something into your WordPress Themes which is not readily transportable unless you’re doing yourself a favor by avoiding an unnecessary server call by hard-coding the site name or other known elements.

The basic difference between these two examples is simple: the first requires you to hard code the ID and page slug for each example; the second grabs the post ID from the existing post object. The second example also has a fall-back if no information has been entered in a given custom field — which is lacking in the original code.

Word to the wise: save yourself some work!

The worst thing I can say about John Rhodes is that the writing coming from his usability blog has been alarmingly infrequent in the last couple of years. 13 posts in the last 12 months just doesn’t really cut it!

Thankfully, the reason for his blogging silence is pretty straightforward: he’s been writing a book. Sweet!

The book is entitled “Selling Usability,” which is a bit of a misnomer, since the subject of the book is perhaps more accurately described as “Making Usability Happen, Despite the Regrettable Lack of Understanding on the Part of Your Managers.” To be fair, that would be a pretty unusable title.

It’s clear within the first 20 pages that John and I share a core philosophy concerning the application of usability: as much as you’d like people to buy in to the core ideals of user experience, you need them to buy in to making the change. By hook or by crook, making the change is what needs to happen in the end.

You can only teach those who are willing to learn; but you can guide anybody to the right decision if you use the arguments they understand and care about.

Selling Usability: User Experience Infiltration Tactics is a guide to convincing decision-makers towards user-experience focused decisions by using business-focused arguments and tactics.

“Selling Usability” is about communicating effectively.

John’s writing is frank and clear. He writes in a casually persuasive voice which quickly drives through the description of a problem into the analysis of why this is a problem — and how you might start to solve it.

This book is not about usability. You’ll learn a lot about understanding and communicating the user experience by reading this book, but it’s not going to teach you how to study user interaction.

Buy it now. You’ll learn more than you think you will, no matter your background.

Most new projects come with some kind of baggage. An old version of the site with, shall we say, incredible code, an expensive CMS with rotten core HTML generation, tools the site owner has fallen in love with which fail to offer even a nod in the direction of accessibility, or demands for some kind of concept which only barely registers as possible within the boundaries of HTTP protocol.

And, as the developer, it’s your job to figure out how to re-do these projects. Usually, there will be more than one way to get the job done: at minimum, you’ll see a quick and dirty method and an arduous, finicky, complicated method which makes tears spring to your eyes in anticipation of the painstaking hours.

Finding the “right” way to do the job is a matter of balancing needs. In an ideal world, the “right” way is the method which gives you perfect accessibility, fantastic usability, and helps sell a million copies of your client’s product in the first 24 hours.

In the real world, it’s the best compromise between your time, your client’s budget, and the needs of the site audience. It may even be a more specific audience — the users of the specific portion of the site which is creating this challenge.

The Challenge of Scale

When you encounter a dozen pages with code which is layered with font elements, excessive span elements and dozens of unnecessary style attributes it’s a trivial task to strip the extra HTML and replace it with the bare minimum required for your needs. When you encounter 12,000 pages like this, of course, you may be looking at man hours which aren’t available anymore.

The Challenge of Legacy Systems

Rebuilding that CMS to deliver a reasonable facsimile of conforming HTML may not only be beyond the scope of practicality — it could well be a violation of the client’s license to use the software. If it’s expensive software, sacrificing a support relationship with the software developer could be very damaging.

With major CMS rebuilds, the most important thing is to identify the scope of changes you can make. Maybe you can’t replace every problem, but it’s honestly not worth discarding $30,000 worth of software investment for the sake of validation. It is worth discarding $30,000 worth of software for the sake of legitimate accessibility barriers. If the system will not allow you to create an accessible form, or generates a shopping cart which cannot be operated without using a mouse, that software should be replaced.

The Challenge of Fancy Widgets

Your client is in love with that poorly-designed Flash widget provided from CrazySite.com. They’ve just gotta have it! It can’t be used by anybody who isn’t using a mouse, the font size can’t be adjusted and is set to 8pt Arial, and there’s a constant red flash which might trigger seizures. But it’s just so cool!

Before you even start discussing the issues above — the un-sexy and hard to sell accessibility problems — it’s good to have a serious discussion with the client the answer one key question: Why. Does the widget serve a purpose for their business? Does it help their users? Does it help sell their product? Sometimes you can successfully get a client to make the right decision on their own once they realize that a function does not actually support their business in any way.

If, on the other hand, it does actually support their business, you’ve potentially stuck yourself with the greater challenge: replacing the functionality of the widget using an alternate means. Programming APIs are great, but not every site actually offers one.

The Challenge of Impossible Functionality

“Impossible” functionality is actually a bit of hyperbole. In my own experience, I’m not sure I recall ever having been asked for something which was actually impossible. However, I have been asked for functionality where the labor to value ratio was extremely unfavorable to the client, which is probably close enough.

Now, this is a highly variable challenge. Sometimes, the best thing to do here is just to ask for a second opinion from a programmer with more specific knowledge than you have. However, assuming that the request is actually unreasonable, the challenge is pretty much the same as above – find out what the client really wants. Sometimes, the difficulty is simply terminology. Some clients might use technical terms in an overly general manner, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings.

Learning to inquire about project needs without using technical terminology is one of the most valuable tools in your scoping toolkit — it can save you tremendous amounts of time, wasted effort, and frustrated miscommunication.

What is doing it right?

So, in the end, what does it mean to do something right? Ultimately, it means not getting lost in the impossibilities of requests and avoiding being distracted by confusing requests. Doing a project right always starts with good scoping: continually asking questions until you’re absolutely certain that what you’re working on is really the project requested. Once the project is properly defined, the tools are known and understood, then doing the project itself is simply a matter of time and normal best practices development!

WebAIM has just published the preliminary results of a survey of screen reader users. With over 1,100 respondents — among whom over 1,000 used a screen reader due to a disability — the survey shows promise of revealing an interesting and valuable perspective on the practical usage of screen readers among disabled populations.

Obviously, no survey is perfect — but observing the overall scope of responses can effectively expose some aspects of screen reader usage.

In fact, the preliminary results evidence a number of interesting conclusions. Among the statistics are indications that screen reader and web site evaluators who do not have a disability sometimes have a very disparate idea of what is more accessible than those with disabilities — an issue possibly connected to the evaluator’s lack of sophisticated familiarity with the screen readers.

It’s not altogether surprising that we in the web accessibility industry do not always choose the path which is actually most preferred — our impressions are necessarily biased by our own understanding of the technology, our presumptions of what is sufficient information, and our lack of ability to fully ignore the visual input we do receive.

That’s what makes this survey so particularly valuable: it begins to expose the difference between common misconceptions of what is accessible and those which are truly of benefit.

In the evidence in this study are included indications that disabled users would prefer that photos which are part of a page should be fully identified: as a photograph, and as the object depicted. There are indications that while site maps may be valuable, they are not in fact widely used by disabled users. There are indications that on-site search and navigation by headings are two of the most important navigation methods on a site for the disabled.

And, unsurprisingly, there’s fairly definitive confirmation that Flash is difficult for the disabled to use.

Nonetheless, the conclusions drawn from this information aren’t really that simple. With Flash, for example: the problem with Flash is almost certainly that the Flash web sites visited were not designed with accessibility in mind. Flash can be used accessibly, but in 9 cases out of 10 (a number I’m making up for hyperbolic purposes) it’s been developed with no regard whatsoever for accessibility issues. So the issue is not precisely with Flash — rather, the problem is with Flash developers.

The preliminary observations from this survey are well worth reading; and I’m definitely looking forward to seeing further analysis of the results.

Thank you, WebAIM!

New in Version 1.2.1:

• Added ability to delete CSS from the style library

New WordPress plugin: WP Post Styling. The plugin serves only one purpose: to create a place to add custom styles which will only apply to the current page or post in your WordPress blog.

Although not widely used on the internet, it’s a valuable magazine design technique to give each article a unique look and feel. A look and feel which shows the face of that article in a light which best represents the subject, topic, or style.

This plugin is intended to make that kind of post-by-post styling simpler.

It’s not that you can’t readily do this in WordPress — either by using a theme which applies style hooks for unique articles, by utilizing WordPress conditional functions to check whether a given page is active, or by whatever other means you might imagine — but this makes it much simpler, since you can simply enter the desired styles into a textarea directly in the post.

Comments and requests should be made at the WP Post Styling home page.

After all the labor you put into designing an elegant site which allows users to readily follow the scent of information, all the work dedicated to developing effective semantics and separating your structure from design, it’s easy for you to still end up with a royally screwed up web site.

Designing interactions with your users and managing errors (expected and unexpected) are a critical part of best practices web development. It hardly matters at all whether somebody can find their way to the right information if they encounter so many problems along the way that they lose trust in your site or give up on their purchase out of frustration!

It’s not that difficult to keep user interactions running smoothly, if you just keep a few basic rules firmly in mind:

• Your users don’t care about error codes.
• Messages should tell people what to do next, not what they did wrong.
• Every action taken by a user should have a response.
• Users will do the things you can’t imagine them doing.
• If you’re going to require something, you better mean it.

Interaction Design

Even the most static web site has interactive features. If your site has a single hyperlink, there’s interaction built into your site. A very small amount of interaction, granted, but there is interaction. The interaction information you can communicate using that single link is based on five specific states:

1. link: A link in it’s normative, unactivated state.
2. hover: The state of the link while a mouse-type pointer is hovering over it.
3. focus: In most browsers, the state of the link when focus is placed on the link by means other than a mouse-type pointer.
4. active: In most browsers, the state of the link while the requested action takes place.
5. visited: The state of the link after the action is completed.

HTML doesn’t provide a lot of options by default, but these four pieces of information are critical to making basic interactions effective for all users. Simply communicating to the user that what they are doing has an effect is invaluable.

Similarly, providing interactive information when no interaction is possible can be very confusing. Simply put: if the user can do something with a control, give them information (scent, anybody?) which indicates that this area has a function. If the control is a link, you are able to ensure that it:

• has an appearance different from the surrounding text (blue, underlined,)
• provides information to mouse users that they are in a position to activate the control
• provides information to keyboard or alternative devices users that they have focused on the control
• indicates that you have performed an action, and that the link is activated
• indicates that the control has been used.

Now, from a practical perspective, this much information isn’t always necessary or helpful. For basic links, it’s rarely necessary to differentiate between hover states and active states. Because of flaws in Internet Explorer’s use of these commands, it’s frequently necessary to assign the same appearance to active and focus states.

Nonetheless, the basic principles at work in these five states are valuable, and can be used to guide your approach to interaction design. Simply keeping in mind that form inputs and script responses are not the only ways to communicate interactively with your users will help you shape the behavior of interactive pages.

Error Management

The possibilities for errors in any complex project are endless, so I’m going to contain myself to a very simple example: a standard contact form. Possibly the most standard expectation for many sites is a means for the visitor to contact the site owner (or whatever appropriate person is involved.) Although providing a phone number and address is generally expected — it may not be the preferred means of communication for either party. Since email addresses are essentially a big, open invitation to spam, contact forms are left as the best method of defining a way for visitors to contact you.

The basic contact form I’m going to discuss is asking for four pieces of information: a name, an email address, a phone number (which is optional,) and a written message. It’s not a lot of information, but still leaves a lot of room for screwing up.

When creating a programming example of this form, all that’s generally covered is the basics: how to gather the information in a form and send it to an end user (usually, by email.) This is the core functionality of a contact form, so it’s reasonable that it’s the first thing to be covered.

This is only a problem if you stop programming before working through the rest of the scenario.

Depending on how it’s written, the program described above will do one of two things on being submitted: display a blank screen to the user, or show itself again, with the information submitted removed from the fields. Neither of these options are particularly palatable by themselves, but they each serve a purpose in providing best practice responses to the users.

First, let’s assume that the user is making a lot of errors. They’re putting a phone number in the name field, gave a web address for an email, and left out their message entirely.

Without any data checking, this message may simply be sent off: the site owner gets useless information, and the visitor wonders why that damned site owner never answers his email.

Obviously, doing a little data checking is good for more than just security: it helps make sure that you’ll actually get the information you needed from the form.

Now, having checked this information, we want to let the user know that something just wasn’t working quite right. But this is a crucial thing to do right — I’m sure we’ve all been to forms where one of the following happened:

• The error message didn’t tell you what your errors were, and requires you to use the Back button to return to the form.
• The error message doesn’t tell you the errors, and deleted all the work you did with the form.
• The error message tells you what errors you made, but doesn’t tell you that it also blanked the password field (which was fine.)
• The error message informs you of an error which you wouldn’t have made had the information been available before you used the form.

Ideally, if an error is made with the form, the response will:

• Identify which fields included errors.
• Return the user to the form itself.
• Retain any information the user supplied in the form.

If relevant, the response might tell you what was wrong with the data you supplied — but, ideally, this shouldn’t be necessary. To take passwords as an example, a response error might inform you that passwords are required to include a capital letter, a number, and a non-alphanumeric character. It may appear helpful for the message to tell you this — but in truth, the form should have already contained that information.

If you’re going to check data, you need to make a point to inform the user what data is required before they submit the form. With the wonders of AJAX available, it’s possible for a form to point out your errors as you make them: but you can’t count on the perceivability or availability of AJAX to your user, so this shouldn’t be the only means of gathering the information.

Information which should be made available to the user in advance includes any required formatting (999-123-4567); any required fields; any specifically forbidden information (profanity or HTML); or any specific requirements or restrictions on length (passwords must be at least 8 characters, message a maximum of 1000.)

Preventing errors before they are made is possibly one of the most important aspects of error management!

“Error management” is actually a bit of a misnomer, when you get right down to it. Above, I mentioned a scenario in which a form is submitted resulting in either a blank page or itself: while having the form re-appear following a user error is an absolute must, the blank page introduces an equally valuable scenario: the success response.

After all, “error messages” are merely a subset of all the responses a form might make — having a useful success message is equally important.

Obviously, a blank page is not a great success message. All it tells the user is that something happened — but what that was, who knows? An effective success response should clearly state to the user what happened with their request. Specifically,

• What information they entered.
• What information was sent.
• Whether the script believes the information was sent successfully.
• Whether they should expect any response, and when.
• If a response is expected, what to do if they don’t receive it within the specified time.

Whether the form is offered up to the user again following submission is going to depend on the context. Some forms (like a basic contact form) are primarily intended to be submitted only once in succession. It’s preferable, in my view, for these kinds of forms not to be displayed after submission. Other forms (like a photo uploader) may be expecting repeat use — it’s far more helpful to the user to allow them the option to upload a second image immediately following the first, without having to return to the form.

What about server errors?

Yes, obviously I haven’t addressed basic error messages such as a 404 “missing” error or other important messages from the server. This is a long article already, so I’ll be brief: provide a customized error message. Make sure that it includes pointers to key pages including the home page, site map, and search page.

Site Administration

It may seem like long-term administration is a completely different issue from best practices in web development. After all, administration is pretty far removed from doing all the design, configuration, and development work you’ve worked hard on!

However, you also need to acknowledge that the vast majority of the lifespan of most projects is the time after you’ve finished. Whether you’re going to be maintaining the site yourself, passing it over to an assistant, or passing it off to the client, there are a lot of things you can do to help protect the site.

For yourself, you can establish a style guide for the site: a list of pre-established styles and elements, what they look like, how they’re used, etc. For myself, I use a custom piece of database-driven software which ties a database of elements and script fragments for a given site to the templates for that site. This allows me (or anybody else) to readily browse either for the element I want or the appearance I want and grab the template code I need.

This kind of a tool helps you remember what you’ve done, even if you’re looking at the site a year down the road — and it can provide a guide for your clients or assistants to know what is expected for a given site.

When a client is maintaining the site, the best thing you can offer them (in addition to a style guide) is education and documentation: teach them what they need to know. Document everything they need to do. There’s absolutely no way you can truly cover everything, but you can certainly try.

In the long run, your site belongs to your client, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent them from screwing it up. However, the more you’ve done to make sure they know how to do things right, the better the chances are that they will.

This concludes the Best Practices in Web Development series. Although much has not been covered, those subjects will just have to wait!