I enjoyed the article, but I thought the examples cited under ““We don’t have the budget for accessibility” are quite a stretch.
The whitepaper cited is from 2006 (which I think everyone can agree is a LONG time in internet years), and you’ve only cited a single source document. In 2006, the SEO landscape was vastly different. The majority of these improvements came at a time when Google’s algorithm looked favourably upon well structured semantic markup.
Accessibility and well structured code go hand in hand, but in these example the business case would have come exclusively from SEO benefits, not from any pro-accessibility stance within those organisations.
Jon Atkinson
I enjoyed the article, but I thought the examples cited under ““We don’t have the budget for accessibility” are quite a stretch.
The whitepaper cited is from 2006 (which I think everyone can agree is a LONG time in internet years), and you’ve only cited a single source document. In 2006, the SEO landscape was vastly different. The majority of these improvements came at a time when Google’s algorithm looked favourably upon well structured semantic markup.
Accessibility and well structured code go hand in hand, but in these example the business case would have come exclusively from SEO benefits, not from any pro-accessibility stance within those organisations.