Texto para Web - Relações com SEO, AI e Acessibilidade

407 views
347 views

Published on

Conteúdo da aula sobre Texto na Web, na disciplina Laboratório de Web - FABICO/UFRGS.

Published in: Education, Technology, Design
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
407
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Texto para Web - Relações com SEO, AI e Acessibilidade

  1. 1. Texto para Web<br />RELAÇÕES COM <br />SEO, ARQUITETURA DE INFORMAÇÃO E ACESSIBILIDADE<br />Laboratório de Web – 2011/02<br />FABICO - UFRGS<br />
  2. 2. Não olhar somente para a qualidade do conteúdo, mas também para a organização e facilidade de acesso à informação.<br />Para pensar “como escrever”, precisamos estudar o modo como os “usuários leem”. <br />Preocupações<br />
  3. 3. Teor do conteúdo<br />Dimensão das páginas<br />Links internos e externos<br />Codificação<br />Escrever primeiro para os humanos: a ferramenta não é nosso público-alvo<br />Relações com SEO/SEM<br />
  4. 4. Texto alternativo para todos os conteúdos.<br />Análise das diversas deficiências e a adequação necessária. <br />Estrutura do texto (leitores de tela).<br />Tamanho de fonte.<br />Acessibilidade<br />
  5. 5. Onde estou?Bons títulos e subtítulos.<br />De onde vim?Caminho de pão, categorização, marcação de menus, etc. <br />Para onde vou?Links contextualizados. Nada de “saiba mais”.<br />TextoAISEO<br />http://www.mestreseo.com.br/seo/seo-ai-arquitetura-da-informacao<br />
  6. 6.
  7. 7. http://www.sembrasil.com.br/artigos/como-a-arquitetura-de-informacao-pode-influenciar-em-seo.html<br />
  8. 8. http://www.sembrasil.com.br/artigos/como-a-arquitetura-de-informacao-pode-influenciar-em-seo.html<br />
  9. 9. http://www.sembrasil.com.br/artigos/como-a-arquitetura-de-informacao-pode-influenciar-em-seo.html<br />
  10. 10. Usuáriostendemapenas a escanearostextos. Dificilmenteleematé o final.<br />Atençãopara a rolagem. Pessoasrolam a página se seuconteúdo for interessante. Decisãodeveestarbaseada no tamanhodapágina, resolução, tamanhodafonte etc.<br />Rolageminfinita é cadavezmaiscomum.<br />Decidirquando é necessário “quebrar a página”.<br />A recomendação é quecadapáginatenha no máximo 400-500 palavras. As quebras, nessecasodevemfazersentido.<br />Usar headings, sub headings, listas e resumos.<br />Tamanho do texto<br />
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14. Blogueirospodem ser consideradoscuradores, ou experts em um determinadoassunto.<br />Devem ser capazes de darsuaprópriainterpretaçãoparaosfatos, imprimirsuaopinião.<br />É cadavezmaiscomumvermos blogs “agregadores” de conteúdos.<br />Curadoria<br />
  15. 15.
  16. 16. Colocarapenas o resumoou o post inteironamesmapágina?<br />Caso de blogs corporativos.<br />Estudo Nielsen 2010 (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/blog-front-pages.html) <br />Análise<br />
  17. 17. Discussõescorrentesnaprodução de conteúdosparaessaárea:<br />Tópicospreferidos?<br />Tom de escrita?<br />Escaneamento e layout?<br />Gráficos e tabelas?<br />Como osusuáriosinterpretamos links?<br />O QUANTO DE CONTEÚDO ENTREGO EM CADA ETAPA?<br />PERCEBER O ENGAJAMENTO DO USUÁRIO.<br />LEITURA SELETIVA.<br />Análise<br />
  18. 18. Testes com eyetrakingrevelaramque:<br />Apenasos 6.000 primeiros pixels sãomostrados.<br />O máximoque as pessoasalcançaramforam 22.124 pixels.<br />Análise<br />
  19. 19.
  20. 20. Evidências:<br />Posts inteirosna 1ª página: pessoasescaneiam ó 1º post, masnãoleemosdemais; <br />Quandoleem, nessecaso, demonstramengajamento;<br />Na maior parte das vezesgostariamquehouvesse a opção de resumo.<br />Análise<br />
  21. 21. Evidências:<br />Posts parciaisna 1ª página: pessoasescaneiamdiversos posts, dependendo do tamanhodapágina. Médiadapesquisa: de 5 a 10 posts. <br />Análise<br />
  22. 22. Evidências:<br />Estruturahíbrida: AOL<br />Fotostornam a leituramaisagradável, fazendo com que o usuárioescaneiemais posts. <br />Análise<br />
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27. Would you trust the information presented in this article?Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?How much quality control is done on content?Does the article describe both sides of a story?Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?<br />http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html<br />
  28. 28. Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?Would users complain when they see pages from this site?<br />http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html<br />
  29. 29. Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?Would users complain when they see pages from this site?<br />
  30. 30. Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?Would users complain when they see pages from this site?<br />
  31. 31. Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?Would users complain when they see pages from this site?<br />
  32. 32. BBC – Standards andguidelines<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futurem<br />dia/accessibility/previousversions/index_v<br />_8.shtml#links<br />A list apart<br />http://www.alistapart.com/topics/content/writing/<br />http://www.alistapart.com/articles/content-strategist-as-digital-curator/<br />UX Mythshttp://uxmyths.com/<br />SOAP<br />http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/soap/resources/whitepapers/writing<br />Use it<br />http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/<br />http://www.useit.com/alertbox/blog-front-pages.html<br />Referências<br />

×