The nature of the case relates to the current technology and the inability for screen readers to interpret the content of some websites. In the case of Target, they use a significant amount of technology to produce their site. The graphic design helps to make the site quite appealing to their visually sighted consumers but makes it nearly impossible to browser for site visitors who use screen readers. That is where the trouble begins. Creating an appealing site is marketing 101, but many web marketers fail to think about the entire spectrum of visitor needs. The NFB argues that this lack of equal access to the content on their site, is a violation of civil rights.

Marc Maurer, who is president of the NFB said in a statement that "All e-commerce business should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind". If you are an internet merchant you should take notice, not so much because of the threat of litigation but rather for the purpose of making your site available to a wider vistor base and SEO-wise, understanding how the search engines read your content. Much like screen readers, the search engines need to be able to read your content in order to calculate your word usable and place your pages in the "appropriate" ranking. In the Target case, their website does not permit screen readers to view the site, almost at all. Below is a screen capture from Google's cached view which shows Targets home page. The first portion of the page informs us that the page information was retrieved on October 7, 2007, and as you can see below the description and disclaimer there is nothing, not a single word of content.

The one thing that Google can pull from this page… Google can pull the title from the page: "Welcome to Target". Not much of a shopping experience for the blind, wouldn't you agree?

A simple search at Google for the keyword "Target" normally displays only two pages from Target's website; the home page of the site, and their career page. (Will they be hiring a SEO or accessibility consultant soon?) The first page of the site most likely ranks in this position because of the number of incoming links attributed to it (think of it as an acceptable method of Googlebombing). While the second page careers most likely ranks because of the content of the page. As you see in the in the cached content image below Google has been able to capture a significant amount of information from the page.

Target, as a keyword, has been referenced in the title, and nearly a dozen times on the page, both in larger fonts such as H1 tags, and link tags. This page ranks second in a large part because of the page content. The number of incoming links is a fraction of those that are directed at the main page, yet it beats out all of the other pages using the keyword target on their page.

This is an excellent example of the need to have strong content on your pages. The search engines seek the content that is most appealing to their palate, and also take into consideration the number of incoming links from pages with associated content. For this to be most effective, and to ensure that your content appears in the search results you need to ensure that the pages of your site are friendly to the engines, and to your customers. By having the strong navigation, and the well optimized page content you will be able to satisfy both the engines, and the portion of your customer base that has a visual handicap.

Time will tell the out come of this case, however ensuring that your sites content is friendly to the search engines can have a direct impact on the bottom line. All of your visitors will have a better experience, be able to read, and navigate your site with less trouble, and hopefully you will be able to transition your visitors to converted customers.

As an aside… just before publishing this article, it appears that Target has already begun the process of updating their site and adding text content to their pages. Will this be enough? Would their current efforts be in compliance with what the NFB is seeking or should the text exactly match the page's graphical content?:

In the past, the search engine reps have stated that flash based content and the equivalent normal text should be the same. As we reported in 2006, there is also the issue of stuffing keywords behind the scenes rather than just re-presenting the same text that appears on page, in graphics, etc. While Target probably won't get in trouble with the engines if the text is not exactly the same, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't strive to be on the up and up in case an engine considers your site to be trying to keyword stuff.

                 ← What is this?

---