Effective video by simple means

Corporate communicators can definitely learn from news media. This week, for example, the New York Times published the following 2-minute video on the riots in London:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/08/10/opinion/100000000992337/what-is-driving-the-riots-.html?emc=eta1

It is gives a professional impression and communicates effectively, yet there is no evidence of any high-end equipment having been used in its production. Obviously, the NYT had access to some very striking imagery and video clips, but the narrative by Roger Cohen seems to have been recorded using the built-in camera of the very laptop computer on which he wrote the story.

One may assume that the editing was done by a specialist with an advanced video workstation, but any modern computer with inexpensive or bundled software would in fact have been sufficient.

Thus, a video that communicates a current story and is of professional quality with regard to the demands that web use sets can be produced without involving a team of experts. All that is needed is a message to communicate, a handful of reasonably good images to illustrate it and someone who is sufficiently handy with editing software. And, of course, a corporate communicator prepared to appear on moving images reading the message.

Such videos could routinely be attached to press releases – not least in order to appeal to smartphone and tablet users, to whom, in particular, it may be natural to watch the video before reading the text. Also, a well-filled video library gives opportunities for extra corporate exposure through services like YouTube.

An introduction to Gamification

Gamification has become an in vogue buzzword drawing a broad range of support and criticism from all quarters of the communication community. Gamification is the use of game mechanics to non-game applications. Gamification’s major insights focus upon guiding stakeholder behavior in desirable directions by providing incentives and motivations through game-inspired models – the majority of these take the form of a leveling up system that provides staggered rewards after particular milestones or achievements.

Gamification is largely the product of other industries viewing the enormous profitability and success of the gaming industry, inspired by particular game franchises including Halo, Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, with understandable envy. It is hard to argue against other industries’ desire to emulate or even grab a slice of 2010’s conservatively valued $50 Billion of game software sales (excluding the profits of hardware and ancillary sales). The arguments for gamification are further strengthened after viewing the results the 2009 US National Gamers Survey, conducted by the marketing research consultancy Newzoo, which revealed that 83% of the US population consider themselves active players, including 72% of the over 50s surveyed. Figures in other countries, particularly in South East Asia, are even more impressive; with computer games forming a near universal cultural experience in some countries.

Attracted by the ongoing success of the computer game industry, game elements are already being adapted and transplanted into different industries and contexts. These include “serious games” used to educate and draw attention to important issues – the most famous being Darfur is Dying – and more commonly interactive training simulations; the most noteworthy being VBS1 (Virtual Battlespace Simulator 1) used by NATO affiliated militaries. The system uses real-world vehicle hulls and combat interfaces rigged to a virtual battlefield environment used to teach platoon, company and battalion tactics. Other military games further blur the line between the real and virtual, including MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System) which is used in field training exercises, attaching laser emitters to blank-firing weapons and sensors onto the real vehicles and personal equipment of the soldiers involved in the exercise to record successful hits. The advantage of all three of these games is that through the application of game mechanics, they let the player experience and learn from simulated dangerous situations without the long term repercussions of possible death, injury and material destruction.

A great deal of debate surrounds gamification with some commentators arguing that gamification offers no new insights, simply repackage lessons in a fashionable new way. Phil Shenk is particularly disparaging in his article “Gamification = b*llsh$t”, arguing that gamification is simply a fad and that the lessons and applications of game mechanics are already commonplace. He uses the competitive drinking and loyalty rewards of pub happy hours as evidence.

In contrast Bryon Reeves, the Paul C. Edwards professor at Stanford’s department of communications, questions whether it matters if video games are the original source of these insights, arguing that the new format highlights these lessons anew whilst providing usable tools to integrate them into business and society.

Games have two primary benefits from the business perspective. The first is that games are essentially learning tools, with all games featuring some form of the Learn, Adapt, Overcome dynamic learning process.  The novice player must first train themselves through play to understand the mechanics of the game, particularly what are the essential skills and tactics required in order to win. The more experienced player moves onto the second stage, refining and adapting their skills and knowledge of the game to new situations and challenges. This stage might also reveal gaps in the player’s skill-base forcing them to repeat stage one. The final stage is when the player has honed their skills and strategies to perfection and is able to master a final challenge. Indeed the learn, adapt, overcome dynamic is such an inherent part of games that in many cases it becomes the central motivation for players to continue playing as they long to learn more skills and strategies to be tested by evermore challenging problems. The business community can adapt the same methods used by games to teach their players how to play more effectively to teach employees skills and methods useful to the business; furthermore by using game mechanics they can instill an enjoyment and delight in learning so that becoming better at one’s job becomes an end or justification unto itself.

The second area in which games have some useful insights to share with the business community is in understanding and manipulating motivations. Games are excellent at providing incentives for continued play. All successful games are at their foundation fun, an attribute that unfortunately many jobs do not share, however the “fun factor” will only last so long until boredom or an enticing new game overshadows an older one. The most successful titles beat these shelf-life factors by going beyond the fun factor and generating commitment and dedication from their players by providing a real sense of fulfillment through achievement. Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate some computer games mastery of the motivations of their players is by examining two of the most successful franchises around today; the Call of Duty (CoD) series of first person shooters which to this day holds the record for the most successful entertainment release the world has ever seen, beating the best Hollywood blockbusters and novels; and World of Warcraft (WoW), the single most profitable massive multiplayer online role-playing game with over 12 million subscribers at the end of 2010.

Both of these franchises are over ten years old and owe their enduring popularity and profitability not just to captivating stories and characters but also to subtle reward systems that fully leverage player motivations to encourage them to continue playing. There are two aspects to both game’s versions of incentives, providing practical and social rewards respectively. The practical rewards are that with continued play, the player is rewarded with more powerful weapons and equipment, allowing them to be more effective in game combat. Whereas the social rewards are provided as the player plays more they earn higher titles and ranks. As higher ranks are progressively more and more difficult to achieve, other players naturally assume that higher ranked players are of a correspondingly greater skill, forming an in-game hierarchy with greater respect and admiration afforded to higher ranked players. Everybody wants to be respected and admired so players naturally play more in order reach higher ranks and levels to earn greater social rewards. On closer inspection CoD and WoW’s reward systems are more nuanced than they first appear. In each, levels become progressively more challenging and time-consuming to achieve the further the player progresses – for example in both games the first few levels can be achieved within a few hours by a relatively unskilled player, however to achieve the final ranks require many hours of gameplay making them only attainable by the most seasoned and committed players. The key lesson that the business community can take from this model is that the tasks required to earn rewards must become progressively more and more challenging as the player/employee progresses and becomes more committed and involved in the reward system. Once they have reached a mid level, tasks should become more difficult, while rewards become more exclusive and they are motivated to push forward by the weight of their previous engagement – simply put, player/employees have committed so much time to earn earlier rewards, that to stop now would feel like a waste of all their previous efforts.

Practical and social rewards can be adapted to the business context. Using the game model, everyone should be able to earn the earliest, simple rewards, so everyone can feel that they are a winner or achiever. Additionally everyone is motivated to learn to work harder and better in order to earn the higher level rewards as they begin to experience the weight of all the previous time and energy they have committed to the reward system and the social pressures of the encouraging them to work towards higher status within the in-game hierarchy.

It is important to consider the ethical implications of gamifying your organization, as the process raises some important moral questions about the value and seriousness of your employees’ and customers’ business. Critics like Deterding have been vehement in their stance that gamification cheapens work, siphoning focus away from the real purpose of hard work – producing something useful or making a contribution towards the good of society – towards petty internal competition driven by meaningless rewards. Others question the ethics of manipulating employees and customers to behave in certain ways through rewards schemes and incentives. While there is some merit to these criticisms, it can also be argued that the as long as gamification is used to motivate people towards positive actions, producing worthwhile contributions to society, the true source and agenda behind their motivations and incentives is unimportant. This form of moral relativism argues that it doesn’t matter if people are manipulated of encouraged through incentives to take particular actions, as long as those actions are positive. It is crucial to fully understand these ethical issues before embarking upon a gamification programme.

Finally, you must question whether it is morally correct to incorporate game elements into your organization’s work culture as many of your employees consider their tasks very difficult or of a serious nature. These employees may be angered by incorporating competitive gaming elements as these may be viewed as belittling their efforts. Many critics have argued that it is patronizing to boil down the successes of employees into a simple points or reward system. It is clearly not ethical to apply a reward system to particular professions, such as medical services or law enforcement with scoring based on the number of lives saved or criminals caught. On the other side of your business, customers may in fact feel patronized as incongruous game mechanics are bolted onto products for seemingly little reason.

Gamification offers interesting opportunities and insights to help your business encourage learning and enhance the motivations of its stakeholders. However, it is not without its pitfalls: clearly sensitivity, a little foresight and in-depth knowledge of your organisation’s stakeholders are essential prerequisites to gamification; while it is strongly recommended that you research the effects of gamification upon your stakeholders using small pilot schemes prior to full scale implementation.

Time for corporate e-learning 2.0

Few topics are as hotly debated as education and intellectual capital. It is rare for more than a couple of weeks to pass without a critical analysis of the state of American higher education on the New York Times list of most emailed articles, and fears about lack of knowledge and its effect on national or corporate competitiveness are found all over blogs and traditional media around the world.

Reform of institutionalized education is certainly a publicly stated concern of many business leaders, and rightly so, but one must admit that the ability of businesses to make a significant impact in that area exists at best in the long term. The real opportunity within the time frame of most corporations’ planning lies in elevating the knowledge and skills of one’s own workforce.

E-learning has been taken for granted as an item in the corporate toolbox at least since the 1990s, but it serves mainly as a cost saver and means of reaching out to more people in a more flexible manner. Somewhat boring standardized classroom courses with somewhat boring printed manuals and workbooks can be transformed into somewhat boring sets of interactive slides, movies and multiple-choice questions – and in the process, a lot of money is saved, and employees get immediate access to the curriculum when they need it, wherever they are.

This has been great for corporate efficiency but hardly revolutionary for corporate intellectual capital. What companies will need in order to stay competitive is a system for not only disseminating prepackaged sets of skills but also elevating the collective knowledge and ability of employees.

Little sooner had the term “web 2.0” entered public conscience than was the idea of “e-learning 2.0” first promoted as a label for systems that would allow students to interact with each other, in order that the total sum of skills and knowledge would be greater than the contents of the curriculum. But actual examples or success stories still seem to be scarce half a decade later.

What has happened in the meantime is that virtually every employed person in the developed world has learned to use digital social networks for personal purposes. There are also major corporations that have implemented their own “Facebook-like” intranet systems, and “social add-ons” abound in the world of corporate IT systems.

For successful e-learning 2.0, we need a fusion of old-school e-learning and the newly acquired skills for digital social interaction among employees. In the process, corporate educators must recognize that learning works not only from the top down, but also in the opposite direction. E-learning that raises an organization’s level of knowledge is as much about constantly listening to each other as about listing and describing facts and skills to be taught.

Employees must be entrusted with contributing to the corporate knowledge, and there must be mechanisms that promote active participation in and contribution to the learning process. At the same time, for each situation, a balance must be struck between centrally controlled structure and freedom of individual contributions.

It is no easy task to implement a new paradigm for how corporate knowledge is built, but the pioneers will be rewarded by a more competent workforce and a stronger ability to attract and keep the most creative and dedicated employees.

Is ”the Social Network” calling time on corporate social media?

As the film world prepares for the 83^rd Academy Awards, with all the anticipation and romance surrounding the beloved Oscars, the business community also has reason to pause and consider the nominations for this Sunday’s event. One movie with 8 nominations, including Best picture, Best Actor and Best Writing – Adapted Screenplay, is bridging the gap between artistic portrayal and business realities. Only The Kings Speech and True Grit have garnered more recommendations but unlike these movies, which are swansongs to the past of Britain’s Finest Hour and the last ride of America’s Old West, The Social Network is set squarely in the 21^st century telling the story of the creation of the present Social Media boom’s poster child – Facebook.

Adapted from Ben Mezrich’s The Accidental Billionaires, The Social Network depicts all the betrayals, intrigues, court cases and breakups that marked the path of the rise of the online juggernaut. While the accuracy of the of The Social Network has been disputed by many of the real world characters portrayed, notably by one of the synonymous founders of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg who claims to have never seen the movie, the film stands not simply as an engaging dramatization of the creation of Facebook but it suspicious and critical tone also makes it one of the first popular culture examples of “Social Media Backlash”.

But what exactly is Social Media Backlash?

The Social Network gives us a hint with its dry critique of Mark Zuckerberg. In the closing scene we see him view with longing the Facebook profile page of the ex-girlfriend who dumped him the evening he created FaceMash, the predecessor to Facebook. The scene is intended to demonstrate that even though Zuckerberg is the visionary of the business of online friendships and social networking, this mastery has only distanced him further and sapped his ability to forge and sustain real friendships. This is the overriding theme of Social Media Backlash; the fear that social media use is creating a “Social Media Society” populated by a generation of users just like the fictional representation of Zuckerberg – sitting alone in the cold blue glow of computer screens unable to enjoy “real” relationships while deluded into believing that they are popular or have strong friendships by the large number of friends, followers, tweets and status updates that fill their online profile pages.

At the same time both conservative and idealistic, Social Media Backlash comes in several different flavours but is united by their common fear of this kind Social Media Society. Evgeny Morozov in The Netdelusion: The Dark side of Internet Freedom phrases the backlash in a broader technophobic context, questioning the ability of the internet and Social Media networks to unite people to enact social and political change. At the same time Morozov highlights examples where he believes these channels have been co-opted and used to support and legitimize repressive ideologies or regimes. He fears that because social media is viewed as a safe and private personal online space, it is the ideal target for the state to infiltrate ideas and information as a way to influence and control their populations. Morozov seems to view Social Media users as gullible, easily manipulated by content presented to them using Social Media channels. 

Sherry Turkle takes a more psychological approach to Social Media’s influence on society. Contrasting with her earlier optimistic tome “The Life on Screen”, Turkle’s latest book “Alone Together” laments what she views as the inexorable transfer of human interactions to the online world. She argues that the online channels are just too basic to capture the depth of true, face-to-face human relationships, diluting and aping them with vague emoticons and 140 character word limits. Turkle’s contribution to anti-Social Media thinking can then be viewed as simply the inability of present technology to fully capture or transmit the full depth of human emotion. She asks the question of whether an original piece of artwork is any less beautiful or thought provoking when it is displayed on Flickr rather than in a gallery or whether a Haiku or Shakespearian sonnet is somehow lessened by being posted online within a 140 character limit? In this light Turkle’s criticism is less about the effects of Social Media on human interaction, more a lament that we are not all great artists or writers and that Social Media have given us a venue to express our inferior thoughts and opinions. It is not Social Media that has made our interactions banal, it has just made the fact more noticeable.

Finally Social Media Backlash has drawn strength from the kneejerk media reactions to several deaths and suicides that have been connected to Social Media. The most famous example of this was the apparent suicide note posted by Paul Zolezzi on his Facebook profile immediately before his death in Feburary 2009. Critics of Social Media cite the lack of any serious reaction from any of his Facebook friends to Zolezzi’s prophetic note as an example of how online relationships are somehow inferior or uncaring, assuming that Zolezzi’s Facebook friends were unconcerned or ignored his statements. These critics ignore the fact that Zolezzi was a known drug user, from a family with a history of both mental illness and suicide, who had frequently made posts insinuating suicide on Facebook to the extent that Facebook friends could assume his comments were made in jest.

So how does Social Media Backlash affect corporate social media communication?

Although many of claims and criticisms voiced by Social Media Backlash are disputed, it is important to be aware that these views will inevitably contribute to a more hostile view of corporate activity on social media channels.

Boiling down the varied criticisms of Social Media Backlash it becomes clear that they are based on two assumptions: first that the time spent interacting with other users online is replacing time spent interacting in person; and second that face-to-face relationships are always of a superior quality than their online counterparts. As questionable as these assumptions are, they must taken into account to avoid criticism of corporate communication based on Social Media Backlash.

Social Media Backlash should not discourage companies from using social media channels as a means to communicate with their stakeholders when it is appropriate, but they should consider it when preparing their social media strategies. With a few reasonable precautions, it is a simple matter to avoid criticism based upon this viewpoint.

-     Before embarking on a social media communications program consider whether this will actually benefit your organization. What content will you communicate online? How will this content shape your company’s image? If the only content you wish to present is boring or repetitive you risk damaging your company’s image by creating a banal social media presence. Consider whether other online channels might be more appropriate for your content, such as industry-specific networks or indices. If you still wish to visible on social media consider piggybacking on traditional media’s social media presences and newer news sites like the Huffington Post.

-     Social Media Backlash fears that social media use dehumanizes relationships and interactions. As an organization, not a human individual, companies have a greater risk of appearing inhuman, adding to the dull and lifeless “white noise” of online communication that Social Media Backlash so heavily criticizes. As a result, corporations must put increased emphasis on imbuing their social media communication with creativity, originality and a distinct personality to avoid this criticism. A good example of this is the “Nuts about Southwest” title used throughout Southwest Airline’s social media presence imbuing it with a distinct and playful personality.

-     Finally just as personal social media use should be seen not as a replacement but a supplement to face-to-face interactions, corporate social media must always form only part of the company’s broader communication activities, using multiple channels to interact with stakeholders. To ensure that your social media content is always relevant always relate it to real world events, such as a product launch or AGM. By asserting the importance of real world interactions by making your social media communication subsidiary to them your organization can ensure that its social media communications are not only always interesting but can never be criticized as being just for their own sake.

By following these easy guides your organization will never contribute to the dulling down of human interactions argued by Social Media Backlash.

The AGM is outdated – can the conversation be moved online?

Yesterday on the 5th of January, the Dutch IR Awards took place in Amsterdam. Apart from the awards ceremony, there were panel debates on different topics. One of the topics was whether the AGM (annual general meeting) was outdated or not.  As the entire event was simultaneously translated, me and some twenty other people were able to follow the discussion although it was in Dutch.

The AGM isn’t normally a subject that is of my interest, but this discussion caught my attention as soon as I heard the word ‘corporate website’ being mentioned.

 “Companies should have a conversation with their shareholders all year round – not only on the AGM”

was the view of the panel member who was in favour of changing the AGM. His suggestion was that the corporate website would be a perfect tool for this. I couldn’t agree more!

The general opinion among the audience – mainly IROs from Dutch listed companies such as AkzoNobel, DSM, Philips, SNS Reaal, TNT and many more – was however not that enthusiastic. They did agree that the AGM needed to be a bit different from today, but not all were ready to have the conversation with the shareholders and other stakeholders online. And to be honest, I don’t think it was only the online part that scared them off.

The awards ceremony took place during dinner, which of course was sponsored by consultants including ourselves with our sister companies within King Worldwide.

.

Report from the east

Last week I attended Bank of New York Mellon’s DR Issuers’ seminar in Moscow. It was an event directed at Russian DR companies and among the 200 participants were IR professionals from Lukoil, Uralkali, Norilsk Nickel and other Russian companies.

The agenda focused of course on how Russian companies can improve their relations and communications with stakeholders. The Russian market is quite special. There are huge companies, and Russia is the world’s largest DR (depositary receipts) market by market cap. Still, the main market is local for many of the companies. Bank of New York Mellon presented their annual IR survey, which is global, and can be found on their website: http://www.adrbnymellon.com/IRSurvey.jsp. It showed some interesting facts about both IROs worldwide, and in Russia specifically.

Investor communications best practice panel

I was fortunate to participate in a panel on the topic ”Best practices in Investor Communications” together with representatives from M: Communciations, Taylor Rafferty, Bank of NY Mellon and Thomson Reuters. Many of the questions we received from the audience was about crisis situations. How do you handle something that you cannot predict?

Risks and crisis situations

The panel agreed that the response to that is that you can predict up to 90 % of crisis situations. BP MUST have discussed the risk of something like the Deepwater Horizon situation; in companies’ risk plans they have to consider risks in the business, risks that might appear due to key staff or external factors that affect their business.

Online communications – lack the tradition of sharing and transparency

My perspective in the panel was of course the online. Russian companies aren’t leading in online corporate communications. Looking at the Russian results of H&H Webranking 2009 (the 2010 result is not official yet, about to be announced soon) – the average score of Russian companies was approximately 30 points, while the Europan average was then just above 48 points.

My theory, which was confirmed at this event, is that Russian companies don’t have the tradition of sharing information – not internally and not externally. And as IR website best practice is mainly about being transparent and sharing information with your stakeholders, it requires a change of mindset among the Russians. Especially for those companies that want to compete internationally, and that have international stakeholders in analysts, shareholders, media etc.

However, I know that some of the Russian companies have quite high ambitions with their online corporate communications, and I don’t think it will take too long until some of them will take a big leap and be as good as the top 50 companies of H&H Webranking. I look forward to that!

Btw – here is my presentation from the event:

H&H Webranking highlights the best in Swedish online CSR Communication

Congratulations were due to Trelleborg AB last week, as they were crowned Swedish champion in online CSR communication, narrowly beating close contenders Atlas Copco, SCA and SKF for the Swedish top spot. The H&H Webranking shone a revealing spotlight on their success, which was reported widely throughout the Swedish press. Check out the full page article on page 15 of last Monday’s Dagens Industri here.

http://www.webranking.eu/Documents/Webranking/articles/2010/bestCSR.pdf

Head of Corporate Communications at Trelleborg Viktoria Bergman, argued the case for increased focus on online CSR and responsibility communication as a whole. First noting that online is a cheap and efficient way of communicating CSR to stakeholders she continued with “For me corporate responsibility is linked to the result on the bottom line. It is a matter of being a quality corporation, doing good business creating profitability at the same time. It is easy to measure the importance of energy efficiency, but many other aspects of corporate responsibility can be linked to economic results.”

Although CSR is a relatively recent addition to the survey, with specific CSR criteria first featured in 2003; it has been a goal of the H&H Webranking to create a protocol that review “CSR as a quantifiable element of IR communications with its own value that can be used in financial calculations, not award something that the companies just talk about”.

Trelleborg earned full scores in all 14 CSR criteria featured in the 2010 edition of the Webranking, beating close contenders Atlas Copco, SCA and SKF for the Swedish top spot.

The Top 10 Most Influential Websites in the World

The oddly-named service called ://URLFAN ranks websites by popularity – based on website mentions. Unlike analytics services like Alexa or Compete, ://URLFAN doesn’t measure website traffic. It’s similar to Technorati, only it ranks all websites and not just blogs.

They states that they parse ”the millions of blog posts that are generated everyday, literally counting every mention of every website we come across”. It claims to filter out spam, broken links, and ”other various material” in order to come up with its rankings.

As of right now, it claims to have ranked the popularity of 3,783,534 websites by parsing 363,908,177 blog posts from 8,195,836 blog feeds.

Yes it’s been around for a while, but I think it’s reached the point now where it’s a very useful tool to measure influence on the Internet.

Here is the current top 10:

1. en.wikipedia.org
2. youtube.com
3. flickr.com
4. twitter.com
5. facebook.com
6. google.com
7. myspace.com
8. nytimes.com
9. imdb.com
10. vimeo.com

Increased awareness of web usability in the Gulf region

Last year H&H Webranking, for the first time ever, included approximately 30 corporate websites from the Gulf region. As the results were not great then, I’m hoping that NN Groups “Usability week” in Dubai is a sign of increased awareness.

Briefly you can say that H&H Webranking measures how well listed companies meet the demands from international target groups such as business journalists, investors, share holders and job seekers. The companies included are mainly European, along with the Global 100 list and a number of companies in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.

Big difference between Gulf and European companies

Last year’s results showed that there is a big difference between the Gulf region and Europe, where the Gulf companies have improvements ahead of them. The results of 2010 for the region have not yet been released, but taking a look at the corporate websites I doubt that major changes have been made yet.

What the websites in the Gulf region in general lack is transparency and the use of Internet as a communications channel. Many of the Gulf corporate websites present the companies quite decently, and some of them are also quite good at using videos and interactivity. But there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to the content.

There is hope for better online corporate communciations!

Therefore it is great news to see that Jakob Nielsen’s NN Group will have their first (as far as I know) “Usability week“ in Dubai in the beginning of next year.

Hopefully, this is a sign of increased awareness when it comes to online communications, which eventually, together with the persistence of H&H Webranking, can lead to better online corporate communications.

Helena

Site speed – a threat to web accessibility?

If you work in the web-world you probably haven’t missed the discussions about the importance of building lightweight and fast loading web sites. Since speed is very important, I would like to take a quick pause and remind us how this may affect web accessibility.

In April 2010, Google announced that site speed is going to be included as a new signal in their search algorithms. Thankfully Google also states that: ”While site speed is a new signal, it doesn’t carry as much weight as the relevance of a page.”

With site speed as a new signal, I really hope that the importance given to speed isn’t something that will override important factors like web accessibility. Yes, companies will focus more on speed in order to climb on the SERPs and I think that it will result in an increase of ultraminimalistic, non-semantic, non-accessible markup being developed in order to save some bytes here and there.

Example

Hence, a basic example using a simple contact form:

<fieldset>
<legend>Personal Details:</legend>
<p>
<label for="name">Name:</label>
<input type="text" name="name" id="name" size="30">
</p>
<p>
<label for="email">E-mail:</label>
<input type="text" name="email" id="email" size="30">
</p>
<p>
<label for="phone">Phone:</label>
<input type="text" name="phone" id="phone" size="30">
</p>
</fieldset>

..versus this one I found on a big corporate web site:

Name: <input type="text" name="name"><br>
E-mail: <input type="text" name="email"><br>
Phone: <input type="text" name="phone">

The first form weighs in at 364 bytes, and the second weighs in at 126 bytes, that’s roughly a 65% reduction in markup weight. Yes, the second form is faster, but we can all agree that the first form is way more accessible then the second and therefore the preferred way to do it for all audiences. Are speed and accessibility on a collision course with each another?

Even though CSS- and JavaScript sources are cacheable, I would rather look deeper into optimizing those for weight reduction as they normally make up for a larger size in total then the html markup does.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think that fast rendering markup is a very important factor, It’s all about finding a balance. I will keep optimizing markup – just not for the cost of web accessibility.