He asked for some books to read, online courses to take, webinars to attend, and so forth. I gave him a partial list as a solid starting point.

When I sent him an upcoming webinar list (with descriptions and agendas) that had me excited, he replied, “I looked at these agendas, and I didn’t see anything related to search engines and SEO.”

My heart sunk. Smart man…very smart man…stuck inside of a SEO bubble.

As SEO professionals, we have conditioned ourselves to believe that if a document (webpage, image, video, webinar, etc.) contains a keyword phrase, then that keyword phrase must somehow describe the document and/or that document’s content.

As SEO professionals, we have conditioned ourselves to believe in, "No keywords? Not related!" Sometimes, there are connections we do not see because we view websites inside of an SEO bubble.

And vice versa—if a document doesn’t contain a keyword phrase, then the keyword phrase must not be applicable to that document.

One usability topic, in particular, might not seem as though it is related to search engine visibility, but it is: emotional design.

Visceral, Behavioral & Reflective Design

One of my favorite usability books is Donald A. Norman’s Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things.[1]  In his book, he discusses 3 different aspects of design:

• Visceral design
• Behavioral design
• Reflective design

According to Norman:

Visceral design concerns itself with appearance. The visceral level is fast: it makes rapid judgments of what is good or bad, safe or dangerous….  (p. 5 and p. 22)

Behavioral design has to do with the pleasure and effectiveness of use. The behavioral level is the site of most human behavior…. [It] is not conscious, which is why you can successfully drive your automobile subconsciously at the behavioral level while consciously thinking of something else at the reflective level. (p. 5 and p. 23)

Reflective design considers the rationalization and intellectualization of a product. The reflective level is the contemplative part of the brain. We can remember previous experiences and tell others about our problems. (p. 5 and pp. 22-23)

Usability professionals are mostly concerned with behavioral design. And Web designers are concerned mostly with visceral design. Interestingly, users/searchers are more tolerant of errors in attractive designs than in ugly ones.

“…although poor design is never excusable, when people are in a relaxed situation, the pleasant, pleasurable aspects of the design will make them more tolerant of difficulties and problems in the interface.” [2]

As a pioneer of search-engine friendly Web design, I have not focused primarily on aesthetic design. I have not focused primarily on accommodating search engines only because optimization involves both searchers and search engines.

Visceral Processing & Google Gullibility

I constantly observe 3 levels of processing all of the time when people interact with search engine results pages (SERPS) and websites.

The visceral level is hard to ignore on a Web SERP because of our instinctive human perceptions. If a site’s listing appears at the top of search results right now, it must be the most relevant, right? And if Google or Bing put that listing there, the link(s) must be safe to click, right?

How many times have we, as searchers, been constantly inundated with inappropriate search listings? Was it the searchers’ fault because we did not formulate an accurate query? Or is it the search engine’s fault, not able to filter out search engine spam? Or both?

Website usability guru Jakob Nielsen stated his article, User Skills Improving, But Only Slightly:

When it comes to search, users face three problems:

• Inability to retarget queries to a different search strategy
• Inability to understand the search results and properly evaluate each destination site’s likely usefulness
• Inability to sort through the SERP’s polluted mass of poor results, whether from blogs or from heavily SEO-optimized sites that are insufficiently specific to really address the user’s problem

Given these difficulties, many users are at the search engine’s mercy and mainly click the top links — a behavior we might call Google Gullibility.

In Emotional Design, Norman said that the visceral and behavioral levels are about the “here and now,” a user’s feelings and experiences when he/she is actually seeing or using a product. In our context, that product is a web search engine. What do searchers see? What do searchers do based on what they see in SERPs?

On the flip side, the reflective level is long term. On the reflective level, users/searchers remember past experiences with SERPs and corresponding websites.

Therefore, to overcome Google gullibility, we have to rely on a different part of our brain: the reflective level.

Reflective Design In Search Listings & Landing Pages

In Emotional Design, Norman said:

Of the three levels, the reflective one is the most vulnerable to variability through culture, experience, education, and individual differences. This level can also override the others. (p. 38)

I observed reflective processing in full force in the last month on an ecommerce website.

The searcher task was to purchase a box of blank-ink markers from a particular brand. Interestingly, one persona in their target audience loved this particular brand of markers so much that they constantly wrapped the markers with colored tape (so no one else in the lab would steal them). And they kept secret stashes in their lab stations.

I understand. I worked in biochemistry labs for about 10 years. These markers are perfect for labeling test tubes, Erlenmeyer flasks, beakers, and the like.

The brand owner of this marker created a separate website for these markers. And guess what searchers clicked on when they viewed the Google SERP? The mini-site’s listing, of course.

Searchers thought that going right to the source of their prized markers would save them a lot of time and (hopefully) money instead of browsing through a bunch of online stores.

However, the homepage of this branded marker site was a Flash-based splash page. I will summarize the basic response to the landing page:

“Oh hell no!” (Immediately clicked the back button)

This response clearly shows a reaction to reflective design because the searchers remembered what it was like to experience Flash-based splash pages. They didn’t want to watch a Flash movie in order to buy their prized markers.

Throughout the month, we performed other search tests. Do you know what happened when the searchers saw the mini-site’s listings appear in search results? Again, I will summarize the basic response:

“I’m not clicking on THAT link again!”

Search engine optimization isn’t only about the here and now. SEO is not a quick fix or a flavor-of-the-month set of strategies. SEO is about consistent, long-term findability.

Emotional design is an important part of the searcher experience from the very first to query to subsequent queries months later. Search engines do not have emotions…but searchers do.

References:

1. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
2. Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better. Interactions Magazine, ix (4), 36-42. Retrieved at: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design.html.

When it comes to keyword classification and context, it is far too easy to inject our personal opinions onto keyword phrases. It is not a “bad” thing to want to relate to, engage, and connect with your target audience.

As search optimizers, we sincerely hope that searchers’ mental models of desired content matches the content we have on our own and our clients’ websites.

Nevertheless, the ability to be objective about keywords is vital in order to truly understand web searchers. As SEO professionals, we not only need to understand the words and phrases that our target audiences type in to search engine, we also need to understand the context of keyword phrases.

Searcher Mental Models & Search Conditions

What exactly do I mean by context? By context, I am referring to a searcher’s mental model and the conditions under which he or she is searching.

Questions to consider:

• Is the search being conducted at home or at the office? Or both?
• Is the searcher using a desktop computer, tablet, or mobile phone?
• Is there a time constraint on the search query, such as needing to change ones hotel reservation due to a delayed flight?
• Or is the search session one that lasts over a period of 2-3 weeks, such as when a person is researching a product before purchasing?
• If the search session is long, are the keyword phrases repeat queries, possibly re-finding queries?
• Is the searcher a newbie, experienced, or expert Web searcher?

Some context can be gathered via Web analytics data and other types of software. But not 100% of searcher context. All too often, Web searchers do not type in their keyword context in a search box.

Keywords Without Context

Here is an example from some usability tests my firm conducted last year. We presented over 100 participants with a search box with a single keyword. The first word we presented was the word gas.

Here are a number of images that came to their minds (not presented in any particular order):

Images associated with the word gas.

Most participants immediately thought gas meant the gasoline that they put in their cars. We observed facial expressions of amusement when participants were thinking of belching/burping or farting.

Then, we changed the context. We told participants that the context was a medical/heathcare context.

None of them thought of natural gas or car fuel. Some participants thought of oxygen. Some (again) thought belching or flatulence. And a couple of participants thought of Group A Streptococcus (abbreviation is GAS). So even though the context was more specific with the second question, the keyword associations were quite different.

We next used something possibly simpler than a word: the letter K.

Here are a number of images that came to their minds after being shown the letter K in a search box (also not presented in any particular order):

Images associated with the letter K

I can tell you my immediate association with the letter K. It was file size, as in kilobytes. I am a Web designer/developer and an SEO. I optimize PDFs as part of my job. So that is my personal mental model.

Around 10% of participants associated the letter K with Vitamin K, which can be found in some of the foods shown above. Keywords associated with Vitamin K include vitamin(s), diet, supplement, vegetables, food, and so forth.

If you put a number in front of the letter K, it can completely change the context:

• 401(k)
• 18K or 14K

What are the words associated with 401(k)? They are probably words associated with savings, retirement, financial planning, and money.

What are the words associated with 18K and 14K? Probably jewelry, metals (gold, silver, platinum), gemstones, and so forth.

Notice how something as simple as a single number or a single word affects context. Notice how users/searchers expect to see different words on webpages based on their search conditions and mental models.

And, as I mentioned previously, searchers do not often type in their context into search queries.

The Untyped Context

Labeling is an area where the areas of information architecture and search engine optimization overlap. Part of my job, as an information architect and an SEO professional, is to understand how a client’s target audience organizes and labels content on a website.

One of my most eye-opening and humbling experiences as an information architect was to recognize that Web searchers do not organize content based on keyword research data. With every card sorting and other usability tests, I heard (and recorded) comments that were contrary to keyword research data.

People do not categorize insurance, travel, real estate, healthcare, food and recipes, etc. by topic but via other means. They might first categorize themselves as a part of a group and then search by topic.

They don’t type in their personal information (What group am I in?) in the search box. But they expect to see their context in search results and corresponding landing pages 100% of the time. They expect to see text, images, and even color associated with their context.

I constantly observe SEO professionals and website owners use volume of queries to architect a site when users/searchers organize content by less common keyword combinations.

In the examples above, look how a single word or a single letter changed the searcher context…and you might not see these words in analytics data or in the right volume.

I am not saying to discount keyword research tools. I have used them since 1995. They provide useful data, particularly for labeling. But I urge SEO professionals to consider alternative means of understanding searcher context.

• Field studies
• User interviews
• Usability testing
• Observing users/searchers in their “natural” search environment
• Diary studies

As information architect Peter Morville stated in his User Experience Design article years ago,”…we must strike a unique balance on each project between business goals and context, user needs and behavior, and the available mix of content.”

Adapted from information architecture guru Peter Morville’s 3 Pillars of Information Architecture. Image used with permission.

And from noted search expert Richard Zwicky in his Context Within Search and Optimization article, “This process of helping guide the search engine to better understand the context of a document, so that the engine can properly direct searchers to the right document, and thus ensure relevant results, is a the core of what any good search engine optimization firm must do. It should be at the core of every search engine algorithm, but obviously context is not yet there.”

Help search engines understand context. Open your eyes to other research methodologies. You won’t regret it.

How well do you know Web searchers? How do you know which data sources are best for understanding searcher goals and behaviors?

I created this short quiz to make sure that all players on your SEO team are on the proverbial same page. (Answers are at the bottom of the page…no cheating!)

1.  The word “login” is strong indicator of what type of Web searcher intent?

1. Navigational
2. Informational
3. Transactional
4. Commercial
5. All of the above

2.  If a Web searcher types in the keyword phrase “benjamin franklin pics” (without the quotes) into a search box, that type of query intent is classified as:

1. Navigational
2. Informational
3. Transactional
4. Commercial
5. All of the above

3.  What type(s) of webpages can naturally satisfy informational searcher goals?

1. Category page
2. How-to pages
3. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
4. Product reviews
5. All of the above

4.   True or false?

A low bounce rate coupled with multiple page views per visitor is a strong indicator of a positive searcher experience.

5.   According to information architect Peter Morville, which of the following attributes are not a part of the searcher experience?

1. Desirable
2. Useful
3. Findable
4. Valuable
5. Profitable

6.  Which of the following data-gathering methodologies provide information about the goals and the intentions behind searcher keywords?

1. Keyword research tools
2. One-on-one usability testing
3. Large-scale log analysis (log file data)
4. Diary studies
5. Website analytics data
6. All of the above
7. B and D
8. A, B, and D
9. A, B, D, and E

7.  True or false?

Both finding and re-finding searcher goals involve recognition and recall.

8.  Of the following items on a webpage, what do eye-tracking usability tests not reveal?

1. Where people spend their time looking
2. What people do not look at
3. Perception through peripheral vision
4. How people separate (or ‘chunk’) information
5. Sequence in which people look at items

9.  What type of search query is a “fishing expedition” (finding all relevant documents about a topic)?

1. Site finding search
2. Ad hoc search
3. Entry page search
4. Known-item search
5. None of the above

10.  True or false:

Web searchers always exhibit orienting behavior whenever they view search engine results pages (SERPs).

Answers To Searcher Behaviors Quiz

1.   A – Navigational. In order for a person to login, he/she must go to a specific website in order to login to it. This word often appears with other keywords, such as the official company or organization name, or all or part of a domain name.

2.   C – Transactional. Even though the searcher might want to see a variety of pictures or photographs of Benjamin Franklin, the words words photographs (and its derivatives) and pictures (and its derivatives) indicate that the searcher wants to engage in the activities of look, see, or view. Not all transactional keywords are verbs.

3.  E – All of the above. A category page normally contains a list of items. A how-to page answers a question about a topic. FAQs pages typically answer multiple questions about a topic. And the word reviews indicates that a searcher wants to read multiple reviews about a product and/or service. Reading, knowing, and learning goals are informational goals.

4.  False. Unfortunately, there are no cut-and-dry conclusions that can be derived from bounce rates and page views per visitor. The answer depends on searcher context.

For example, if a Web searcher’s goal is to find the store hours of his preferred pharmacy, and he finds that information (quick fact) immediately, then his searcher goal is complete without having to view multiple pages. On the flip side, viewing multiple pages can indicate that the Web searcher is lost on a website, especially if pogo-sticking click paths are followed.

5.  E – Profitable. Even though website usability is balancing business goals with user expectations, a website should provide value to searchers/users. Search engine spam, for example, does not provide value to either search engines or Web searchers.

6.  G – Both B and D. Keyword research tools, log file data, Web analytics data, and even site search analytics can reveal what people search for and how people search. They can also reveal how searchers interact with search engine results pages (SERPs) and other web pages. Ultimately, direct human-researcher interaction with web searchers is needed to determine the whys of searcher goals and behaviors.

7.  False. According to researchers at Virginia Tech, finding goals and behaviors are more exploratory in nature and have a degree of uncertainty, whereas re-finding is more directed. Web searchers know that desired content is available because they have probably seen it previously; therefore, re-finding relies on both recognition and recall.

8.  C – Perceptions through peripheral vision. According to usability guru Jakob Nielson and Kara Pernice in their book Eyetracking Web Usability, users get desired information with peripheral vision. They might not focus on a page element because they believe the element is not needed for the immediate task at hand (search bar, ads, items that look like ads, etc.)

Additionally, usability expert and author Dr. Susan Weinschenk said that people sometimes choose to not fixate on an item because their peripheral vision indicated that the item was not easily decipherable. And she said that it is possible for people to be looking at one thing and actually pay attention to something nearby.

9.  B – Ad hoc search. A known-item search is similar to an ad hoc search but the target of the search is a particular document, or a small set of documents, that the searcher knows to exist in the collection and wants to find again. Site finding is similar to known-item searching because the searcher is looking for a particular website.

However, with a known-item query, the searcher has already visited the site previously. With site finding, the searcher might want to go to a known or an unknown website. With an entry page query, web searchers’ desired content is a central page of an organization—a page that functions as the portal of information.

10.  True. Orienting is a behavior whereby users/searchers determine their position in a website with reference to another point—establishing a sense of place. It occurs naturally during the browsing and searching processes. Web searchers quickly scan the top screen of the results page (from top to bottom) to ensure that they have been delivered to the most appropriate page (orientation) before reading individual search listings (ads, organic, and blended listings).

How did your SEO team do? Are there any questions or answers you think should be added, deleted, or edited? Fill out some comments below and let me know.

Normally, I teach SEO professionals about information architecture: what it is and is not, how to determine the best IA for websites, and so forth. At this event, it was the other way around. I was educating, or perhaps re-educating, information architects about SEO.

Search engine optimization has never been sprinkling magical pixie dust on a website.

Teaching SEO can be frustrating because one must deal with negative stereotypes (“snake-oil charlatans”) and erroneous, preconceived notions about SEO.

How many times are we faced with a prospect who thinks SEO is about sprinkling magic fairy dust on a website so that it ranks #1 in Google all of the time for every targeted keyword phrase?

Oh, apparently we have the magical ability to make this happen…last week.

To be perfectly honest, I often prefer to work with people who are completely ignorant about SEO so I don’t have to deal with the stereotypes, preconceived notions, and Google gullibility.

Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that the stereotypes, SEO myths, and gullibility exist. Acknowledging and challenging the negative stereotype is par for the course.

SEO Awareness

I have said it before. And I will say keep repeating until the world grasps this fundamental SEO concept: SEO is optimizing a website for people who use search engines.

Like the term “website usability,” the term “search engine optimization” is easily misunderstood. People honestly make statements such as, “I am the user,” and “Optimize for the average searcher,” and “People use my website all of the time; therefore, it is user friendly.”

Usability is about task completion and involves the following items:

• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Learnability
• Memorability
• Error prevention
• User satisfaction

It is easy for people to believe that search engine optimization is optimizing a website for search engines only. Too easy, I think.

In reality, SEO has always been about searchers and search engines. Ignoring one at the expense of the other is a mistake…a big mistake.

So how do we make people aware of what the SEO process really is? I posed this question to one of my clients. Here is his 2 cents:

“Even though staff learned about SEO responsibilities that were not directly a part of their jobs, at least they have an awareness about how their contributions can positively or negatively affect SEO. That awareness is invaluable.”

I believe his comments show great insight. Don’t expect everyone to know how to do SEO after a short presentation. Don’t expect everyone to instantly become an SEO expert after a few hours in a certification course. Expertise comes from knowledge and experience.

Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to expect a fundamental awareness of SEO, knowing that SEO involves meeting the needs of both searchers and search engines. And also knowing that SEO is not the process of sprinkling magical pixie dust on a website.

I expect that fundamental awareness from anyone working on a website: designers, developers, usability professionals, user experience designers, writers, advertisers, information architects, and so forth.

That awareness is invaluable.

SEO Knowledge & Aptitude

Here is a proverbial tough pill to swallow: not everyone has the aptitude for SEO or different aspects of SEO.

SEO professionals should understand how people search as well as why people search.

Search engine optimization has a human element as well as a technical element. Some SEO professionals are gifted technical SEOs. This is the group to turn to for assistance in managing duplicate content.

Some SEO professionals are expert copywriters. Some SEO experts are skilled at usability testing and might be the group to turn to if a site has search engine traffic and low conversions. Some SEOs are knowledgeable about how people search. And some SEOs are knowledgeable about why people search.

I wouldn’t ask an search engine optimizer who specializes in copywriting to program redirects. Nor would I expect a developer/programmer to be skilled at information architecture and usability testing.

I expect SEO professionals to have more than awareness. I expect them to have aptitude and knowledge.

If an SEO professional does not have a specific SEO skill needed for a project, I expect that person to reach out to an SEO who does…without feeling threatened. SEO should be a group effort. Everyone is on the same team.

I know. I know…easier said than done. Stereotypes, myths, and misconceptions can be difficult to debunk. So what did I share with the audience of information architects?

Part of an SEO’s job is:

• Labeling website content so that it is easy to find (unique aboutness)
• Organizing website content so that it is easy to find
• Ensuring search engines have access to desired content
• Ensuring search engines don’t have access to undesirable content (or at least limiting access)
• Accommodating searchers’ navigational, informational, and transactional goals

Information architecture decisions can positively and negatively impact SEO on web search engines as well as site search engines. Information architects have a role in SEO. Have the awareness.

Even better? Have the knowledge to hire an SEO professional when one is needed. Have the knowledge and humility to recognize that you might not have the aptitude and talent for optimizing. Understand that SEO knowledge does not necessarily mean SEO aptitude. Understand your role in the optimization process. Be knowledgeable enough to recognize a “snake-oil charlatan.”

Information architecture guru Peter Morville wrote the following in the foreword of When Search Meets Web Usability:

“Shari Thurow is among the few specialists brave enough to jump the gap between search engine optimization and web usability. As a result, she has learned how and where to place stepping stones and build bridges. She can speak the language of link analysis and relevance ranking algorithms, while also understanding user psychology and information seeking behavior.”

Yep, I build bridges. But I cannot make anyone cross a bridge. Awareness is the first step. Take that first step, information architects. You won’t regret it.

Doing SEO without understanding searcher goals and behaviors is like doing math without knowing how to add.

Many people believe that SEO is simply optimizing a website for search engines. In reality, SEO is optimizing a website for people who use search engines.

Saying that you know SEO without understanding searcher goals and behaviors is like saying that you understand math without knowing how to add.

Likewise, many people believe that website usability is simply making a website easy to use. Easy to use for whom? The developers? Website owners? Web searchers? SEO professionals?

Search engine optimization has fundamenal building blocks. So does usability. Website usability professionals typically measure:

• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Learnability
• Memorability
• Error Prevention and Recovery
• Searcher (User) Satisfaction

Let’s look at each of these items individually and how they pertain to the field of search engine optimization.

Effectiveness

Contrary to what many search engine marketers believe, website usability is not about ones’ personal opinion. Usability is about achieving objectives and task completion. So when search usability professionals measure the effectiveness of a website, they evaluate the following:

• Can searchers achieve their objectives and complete specific tasks via the commercial web search engines and your website?
• Can searchers easily find their desired information, destination, or activity on a website?  
• If searchers cannot or do not achieve their objectives, what were the roadblocks encountered? Can those roadblocks be eliminated or minimized?

Navigational queries are very important to search usability professionals because the searcher goal is to go to a specific website. And website owners should help searchers achieve that goal very easily.

One way for me to evaluate this is to perform navigational queries to see which pages appear in search listings.

• Pancreatic cancer cancer.gov
• Cancer pancreas National Cancer Institute
• “pancreatic” site:www.cancer.gov (with and without the quotes)

If I do not see the most appropriate page appear at the top of search listings for navigational queries, then I know that the labeling system and other information architecture items need tweaking.

Efficiency

Once usability professionals determine that task completion is possible, they want to see how efficiently searchers were able to complete their desired search objectives.

• How quickly can site visitors perform specific tasks on your website?
• How many steps were required to complete simple search tasks? (Too many, too few, just right)
• What elements on your website discouraged or prevented searchers from attaining their search objectives?

SEO professionals should be careful about over-generalizing efficiency. Even today, I still hear and read SEO professionals touting the 3-Click Rule. The 3-Click Rule basically states that every piece of content on a website should take no more than three clicks to access.

Well, SEO professionals and website owners, the folks at User Interface Engineering disproved that rule a long time ago. (See Testing the Three-Click Rule at UIE for details.)

Information scent and task completion are more important to searchers than the number of clicks.

Learnability

Usability professionals also evaluate how quickly and easily searchers learn how to use your website the first time they encounter it. They review and evaluate webpage items such as:

• Site navigation (placement, formatting, and labeling)
• Clickability (visual affordance)
• Content labels and descriptions (aboutness)

Simply put, if searchers have to spend time learning how to use your website, they are spending less time on achieving their searcher goals. If a website is too hard to learn, then searchers hit the Back button.

Memorability

After a searcher has learned to use your website, how quickly and efficiently can that searcher accomplish his or her searcher goals?

For example, if the searcher goal is a quick fact, where might the searcher look for that information on your website? The FAQs section? The Tips section? If the searcher goal is to log in, does the searcher want to go to a specific login page? Or does the searcher just want to arrive at your site and quickly scan the utilities navigation for the Login link?

During usability tests and evaluations, I have personally observed web searchers exhibit re-finding behaviors.

Searchers might not remember the name of the website or the webpage where they initially found their desired content, but they remember the keyword phrases used on Google (or another search engine). Once they see a title, snippet, URL, image or video thumbnail on a SERP, they immediately click on it.

If your site is memorable, it can make re-finding search queries easier for web searchers.

Error Prevention and Recovery

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect website. Nor is there a perfect search engine. Search engines might not display the most appropriate page. And searchers might go down a less-than-ideal browse path. Nevertheless, error prevention is a critical part of website usability.

Website usability professionals regularly monitor and evaluate:

• What errors do searchers and search engines typically make and encounter?
• How frequently do these errors occur?
• How severe are the errors?

Some errors are dealbreakers. And they absolutely must be addressed and fixed, such as missing content (a 404 Page Not Found Error) with quality link development.

Conversely, some errors are infrequent and not so severe. They should be on a to-fix list but are not necessarily at the top of the list.

SEO professionals might not realize that by monitoring data from web analytics data, webmaster tools, site search analytics, and SEO software, they are actually analyzing items that are important to usability professionals as well.

Searcher (User) Satisfaction

The searcher experience has never been as simple as, “I like this website” consensus in a focus group. Nor is it a, “This is cool!” exclamation during a usability test. Searcher satisfaction is tied very heavily to goal achievement.

In other words, if searchers are able to achieve their goals and complete search tasks efficiently, they rate their searcher experience as high. If searchers encounter too many roadblocks and do not find their desired content, they rate their searcher experience as low.

So Search Engine Land readers, this is what website usability is all about: effectiveness, efficiency, memorability, learnability, error prevention, and searcher satisfaction.

Next time you read or hear an SEO professional make any statements about website usability, make sure that he or she understands these usability fundamentals. If you don’t hear this terminology or understanding? Well, then, maybe you will know which search usability professionals to listen to…and which ones you can dismiss.

“What is your SEO archiving plan?”

Do you know what the typical response is? Stunned silence.

Then I ask another question:

“Who is in charge of archiving your blog content as well as your corporate website content?”

Do you know what the typical response to that question is? Continued silence. More stunned expressions. People looking at each other to see who might have the answer to that question.

You see, to too many people, SEO is all about keywords and rankings and freshness and the latest flavor-of-the-month tactic. A topic like archiving does not appear on an SEO professional’s radar until a specific situation arises, such as a site redesign or a migration to a new content management system (CMS).

The Costs Of Not Having An Archiving Plan

Long time Linking Strategist Eric Ward, who also publishes LinkMoses Private, shared this URL archiving horror story with me:

“I worked with a client for many years, each month seeking links for the new content they added each month. This new content was always subject specific, and was placed within a subdirectory at a nice short URL that made the link seeking process easier. In this company, the marketing departments and IT departments didn’t communicate every decision they made to each other.”

“Well, the IT department made the decision to change web content delivery platforms, but they did not share this with the marketing folks, who had no idea it was happening. Overnight thousands of URLs changed, with no redirects in place. Nothing but 404s.”

“This meant that all the deep links I had obtained over the course of several years became useless. There was no migration or archiving plan in place. There was no old site map or list of previous URLs. The lesson from this is Web sites demand planning and cooperation across departments. One decision can wreck a lot of work.”

Unfortunately, I encounter this type of situation all too frequently. There is a mad scramble to put together properly programmed 301 redirects without considering the searcher experience.

Web pages that should return 404 File Not Found errors are redirected to the home page in the chaos to retrieve lost link juice. 301 redirects might have to be implemented and re-implemented, diminishing their value. Web content that had solid link development and easy access is suddenly buried in the revised information architecture.

The costs of not having an effective archiving plan results in lost search engine visibility (temporary and long-term), diminished brand credibility, and considerable staff/outsourcing time and expense to repair the damage. Ultimately, these items lead to lost prospects and lost sales.

Archiving Blog Content

Many pre-formatted blog templates offer archives by date, but this feature is not enough for effective SEO and overall findability.

So let’s go back to my original situation. During the wave of enthusiasm for launching a blog for increased freshness, spidering, and (hopefully) increased search engine visibility, an archiving plan is never discussed.

And if archiving is mentioned? The answer is a typical brush off — just use the pre-programmed archives in the blog software. End of archiving discussion.

Well, I can tell you that pre-programmed blog archives is not an effective way to archive content because users/searchers generally do not discover or locate desired blog content by date.

They search for it by keywords using either a commercial Web search engine or a site search engine. They browse by categories and related content. Therefore, it is important for blog content to contain both parent-child and sibling-sibling links to related content.

Too many blogs remain uncategorized or rely on tagged pages as a poor substitute for an effective information architecture.

(Note: Tagged pages on blogs typically lead to duplicate content delivery. Duplicate content delivery to search engines can result in less pages being indexed, important pages not being available to rank, and a compromised searcher experience.)

Furthermore, blog content should not be written once and discarded. If you want your blog content to have long-term search engine visibility and grow stronger over time, archiving and categorizing are a necessary part of the SEO process.

“Posting valuable website content is not for a one time, getting attention driving endeavour. It’s also about long-term value,” said Ezra Silverton, Website Architect at the Canadian-based 9th Sphere. “One key attribute to long-term content value is making it easily accessible to visitors and crawlers long after its posted.”

Think about this: every blog post you write is going to eventually disappear from the home page and top-level category pages. When those links disappear:

• How are you making that content accessible to both searchers and search engines?
• What parent-child links are available on blog template pages?
• What sibling-sibling links are available on blog template pages?
• If you cannot put these links in the template, how else are you accommodating natural finding behaviors?

If you didn’t have an archiving plan from the outset, imagine the amount of work it would take to implement these items and achieve the long-term benefits. Not having an archiving plan or strategy ultimately hurts all types of websites…not only blogs.

As SEO professionals, we understand that SEO should never be an afterthought during the site design or redesign process. SEO works the best when it is addressed during the planning stages of website development. Archiving is no different. Archiving is an important part of the SEO planning process. It shouldn’t be an afterthought.

In other words, the answer to, “What is your SEO archiving plan?” should never be stunned silence.

Some SEO professionals are more technology (search engine) focused. Some SEO professionals are more searcher focused…and there are various shades in between the two extremes.

When I train or consult clients on how Web documents more search-engine friendly for users, I often run into another dilemma: user-centered design vs. usage-centered design. At this point in time, I feel that SEO professionals lean heavily on usage-centered design.

Usage-Centered Design & Activity-Centered Design

Usage-centered design is a term coined by software developer and professor Larry Constantine and Lucy Lockwood that focuses on user intentions and usage patterns.

It is very similar to activity-centered design (ACD), which is also concerned more with the activities of users but not the characteristics of users.

I admit I was very excited when I first encountered the topic of usage-centered design. I grasped it immediately because, as an SEO professional, I am very focused on how people search.

Is the searcher behavior navigational, informational, transactional, commercial? What are the keywords that searchers genuinely type into the major Web search engines? What are the clickstreams?

Many SEO and analytics tools are built to identify, troubleshoot, and understand user behaviors and activities. In my opinion, I believe SEO professionals are light years ahead of usability professionals and information architects because they do not ignore or discount searcher activities. SEO professionals do not ignore findability as a facet of the user/searcher experience.

However, and I’ve said this many times over the years in conferences and articles, these tools show us searcher activities—how people search.

But they do not tell us why people search. And that is where user-centered design fits into the SEO equation.

User-Centered Design (UCD)

Now, as a usability professional (putting on my website usability hat right now – it’s not black), I absolutely understand the value of usage-centered design. If any of you have had to do any work with personas, you might know how difficult it might be to explain the need for them, identify them, and create them.

For example, I often have problems explaining personas and usability tests to a marketing team. A usability test is not a focus group, and a persona is not a market segment. CennyDD Bowles and James Box, co-authors of Undercover User Experience Design, explained the difference:

“Personas represent the other side of the marketing data coin. Segments cluster individuals into groups. Personas create individuals to represent groups.”

I have a confession to make. When I was first educated and trained on personas, I thought my instructors were full of hooha. I felt that they were more concerned with the personal characteristics of users rather than their behaviors and activities. I was dumbfounded that no one seemed to put searcher characteristics (newbie vs. expert, etc.) in their personas. And I did not understand why findability and SEO were discounted or ignored when creating relevant scenarios.

In other words, I was not a persona and user-centered design fan for quite some time.

Then I started conducting usability tests as both an observer and a facilitator. I was absolutely dumbfounded at how people performed tasks (different from me, at least). Keywords were ignored when formatted and positioned in various places on a webpage…and these keywords seemed so obvious to me. On the flip side, I was also gobsmacked at what keywords test participants did notice.

Ultimately, I grew to accept that when I designed or developed an interface, I should not create or conduct any usability tests because of my lack of objectivity. That entire learning experience was so eye opening.

I understand that many SEO professionals have limited knowledge and experience in website usability, information architecture, and user-centered design. I understand that my SEO journey is unique. Others become better SEOs by following a more technical path. Other SEOs become very skilled link developers and social media experts. All in all, I see that the field of search engine optimization has clearly been a part of usage-centered design.

What do you think? Is search-engine friendly design: user-centered design, usage-centered design, or both?

References

• Bowles, C. and Box, D. (2011). Undercover User Experience Design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Book website at http://undercoverux.com/.
• Constantine, L. and Lockwood, L. (1999). Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design. New York: ACM Press.
• Constantine L. Activity Modeling: Toward a Pragmatic Integration of Activity Theory with Usage-Centered Design, 2006. (PDF)
• Designing Web Applications for Use – User Interface Engineering article/interview.

I want to know whether test participants can truly complete their search tasks more efficiently, more effectively and with greater satisfaction. Were any roadblocks encountered? If so, what were they? Can we minimize or eliminate some roadblocks? If so, the result is better search results pages.

For search optimization professionals, the result is better optimization because, for the most part, search engines get content for search listings from your website. Better content, better labels, better aboutness, better search listings.

However, I am always troubled by usability studies that are not conducted properly. So for today’s article, here are some things you should look out for when hiring a usability firm to conduct eyetracking tests on search interfaces.

Characteristics Of Test Participants

Whenever you conduct a usability study, it is very important to conduct the study with participants who fit a persona or profile. For example, if a website’s primary target audience consists of women who makes major health care decisions for their families, then adolescent boys should not be among the test participants.

Testing SERPs is no exception. Characteristics of Web searchers vary by gender, age, experience and so forth (see resources below).

Quantity Of Test Participants

I admire the knowledge, experience and writings of usability guru Jakob Nielsen very much. However, I almost feel that his research, Why You Only Need To Test With 5 Users, was greatly misinterpreted — especially by SEO professionals.

Nielsen has published more recent and more detailed work on usability testing. In his Eyetracking Methodology Report — How To Conduct And Evaluate Usability Studies Using Eye Tracking (2009), he stated:

“… heatmaps can be dangerous because they appear to be qualitative representations of multiple users’ fixations, when in reality they are quantitative because they are based on statistics. If you are using heatmaps to actually draw conclusions based on an aggregate of users’ experiences, or if heatmaps are the main deliverable, then eyetracking requires many more test users than traditional usability studies. If using heatmaps to analyze data, ensure that you have 30 users per heatmap. Thus, you should include about 39 users (as opposed to five or so for a traditional qualitative study).”

For those of you who wish to conduct valid, high-quality eyetracking tests on SERPs, please recruit the right amount of test participants who fit a persona or profile. Don’t overgeneralize.

Scenarios

As I mentioned in a Search Engine Land article earlier this year, usability test participants should be presented with the same scenario. Eyetracking tests are no exception. According to Usability.gov:

“A scenario is a short story about a specific user with a specific goal at your site. Scenarios are the questions, tasks, and stories that users bring to your Web site and that the Web site must satisfy. Scenarios are critical both for designing Web sites and for doing usability testing. (Source: Create Scenarios.)

“Eyetracking is an interesting technology, but it can be very misleading,” says Dr. Susan Weinschenk, founder of the User Experience Institute. “One problem with eyetracking is that researchers underestimate the effect that the wording of instructions has on where participants look. Early research by Yarbus in the 1960s showed that the pattern of the eyetracking depends on what you say to the participants during the study.”

(Please see Susan’s blog article 100 Things You Should Know About People: #18 — What People Look At On A Picture Or Screen Depends On What You Say To Them, for interesting photos from Yarbus’ research.)

As we all know, search listings are different from person to person. If a keyword or keyword phrase shows local intent, a Web searcher in Chicago will get considerably different search results that a Web searcher in San Francisco.

Furthermore, if a Web searcher is logged in, search results are further personalized. So the usability firm should ensure that test participants are presented with the same scenario, the same instructions, the same SERPs and the same search environment.

Foveal Vision, Peripheral Vision & Attention

According to design researcher Jim Ross in the article Eyetracking: Is It Worth It?, from UX Matters:

“Eyetracking can be misleading, because it does not capture peripheral vision. Eyetracking records and displays foveal fixations, in the small part of our visual field that produces the sharpest vision. It does not record peripheral vision, which makes up 98% of our visual field. This is significant, because we use peripheral vision to choose where to fixate our fovea next.”

The fovea centralis, also known as the fovea, is responsible for sharp central vision (foveal vision).

Foveal vision, peripheral vision, saccades, fixations, the eye-mind hypothesis — these are all terms that I would expect a firm conducting a usability study to know. In the1980s, Marcel Adam Just and Patricia Carpenter came up with the eye-mind hypothesis, which states that there is a strong correlation between where one is looking and what one is thinking about.

Well, I am thinking about giant, pink, fire-breathing dragons right now. I’m not looking at one. OK, I admit I am being a bit sarcastic. The eye-mind hypothesis does have some validity.

However, I do believe SEO professionals need to evaluate eyetracking studies more critically. Searchers might seem to ignore a search listing or a search engine ad when they might see (and remember) one of them with peripheral vision.

Although it might seem that I am a naysayer of eyetracking studies, I am not. I don’t believe eyetracking is a fad. A well-conducted usability test has always provided me with insights into creating better and more useful search-engine friendly websites.

But I am critical of search firms that conduct this type of research. Make sure they are qualified. Make sure they are not overgeneralizing. Make sure they are conducting eyetracking studies properly.

“Just as with any research, you have to make sure that the research had enough participants, and ask whether the participants were representative of your audience,” Weinschenck concludes. “It’s very important that you stop and think about what the eyetracking results mean and be cautious about changing your whole design strategy based on eyetracking research.”

For those of you who are interested in eyetracking and searcher characteristics, here are some useful resources below.

Resources

• Eyetracking Web Usability book companion section on Useit.com.
• Fidel, R., Davies, R.K., Douglass, M.H., Holder, J.K., Hopkins, C.J., Kushner, E.J., Miyagishima, B.K., & Toney, C.D. (1999). A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(1), 24–3
• Holscher, C. Strube, G. (2000) Web Search Behavior of Internet Experts and Newbies. International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 33(1–6), 337–346.
• Lazonder, Ard W. et al. (2000) Differences Between Novice and Experiences Users in Searching Information on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 576–581.
• Large, A., Beheshti, J., & Rahman, T. (2002). Gender differences in collaborative web searching behavior: an elementary school study. Information Processing & Management, 38 (3), 427-443.
• Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., & Gay, G. (2006). The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. Information Processing & Management, 42, 1123-1131.
• Maghferat, Parinaz, & Stock, Wolfgang G. (2010). “Gender-specific information search behavior.” Webology, 7(2), Article 80. Available at: http://www.webology.org/2010/v7n2/a80.html
• Poole, A., and Ball, L. J. (2006). Eye tracking in HCI and usability research. In C. Ghaoui (ed.), Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction. Idea Group Inc., Pennsylvania.
• White, R. and Morris, D. (2007). Investigating the Querying and Browsing Behavior of Advanced Search Engine Users. In Proc. SIGIR 2007, 255-262.
• Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision (B. Haigh, trans.), New York: Plenum.

Search engine optimization (SEO) merges user-centered design (UCD) and technology-centered design. Image created by Omni Marketing Interactive, used with permission.

I then told him that I am a Web developer who makes website content easier to find via the commercial Web search engines, like in the green part of this diagram.

However, as you can see in this diagram, I don’t design for search engines only. I also understand what people search for, and what they expect to see on webpages after they click on a link from Google, Yahoo, or Bing.

That is quite a mouthful (and an eyeful), isn’t it?

As hard as I try, I just can’t seem to explain search engine optimization easily on an elevator, at least not without a diagram.

Nevertheless, I have used this diagram for quite some time now, to explain what it is that I do for my client websites.

The Perceived Definition of Search Engine Optimization

Many people have preconceived ideas about SEO, and I try to surface those preconceptions with a short quiz question:

True or false: A search-engine friendly website is a website that is written, designed, architected, and programmed for primarily for top search engine positions.

I have presented this question at the beginning of my Search-Engine Friendly Web Design session at search engine conferences worldwide since1999. I pose this question to understand the audience’s mindset.

Are they there to understand purely how to make sites rank, or do they really want to learn many of the “it depends” that are involved with the optimization process?

Recently, I realized that part of my problem is how many of my colleagues and I have defined search engine optimization over the years. Even in my own book, When Search Meets Web Usability, I realized that I left out searchers in my own definition:

Search engine optimization is the process of designing, writing, coding (in HTML), scripting, and programming an entire website so that there is a good chance that web-page listings will appear in web search results for selected keywords.

From Thurow, S. and Musica, N. (2009). When Search Meets Web Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders, p. 5.

For all of my harping-and-hemming-and-hawing about users for many years, you’d think that I’d include searchers and user-centered design (UCD) in my definition. But I didn’t.

Perhaps that is the reason why so many people misunderstand search engine optimization. We unknowingly take the searcher out of SEO.

User-Centered Design Is Not SEO

For years, many SEO professionals have touted that user-centered design is naturally search-engine friendly.

But as my noteworthy colleague Danny Sullivan has pointed out to me for many years, a perfectly user-friendly website just might not be accessible to the commercial Web search engines. There is still plenty of great in the “invisible Web” that isn’t accessible to both searchers and search engines.

Danny is right. SEO helps to alleviate that problem by providing accessibility and limiting duplicate content delivery.

Technology-Centered Design Is Also Not SEO

One of my biggest beefs with the SEO industry is that “advanced SEO” has come to mean technical SEO. When in reality, copywriters, information architects, usability professionals, and link developers have plenty of “advanced” SEO skills, some skills that technical SEOs might not possess.

Additionally, if you look at this slightly updated diagram, I often find that a great number of search engine spammers fall into the technology-centered design category.

Search engine spam tends to happen among those who focus on technology-centered design. Image created by Omni Marketing Interactive, used with permission.

Of course, I do not believe that all technical SEOs discount searchers – not at all. So what is it I am trying to say?

My Elevator Pitch

My elevator pitch was this diagram. I have been excited about SEO as a legitimate industry and field of study since 1995 because I believe it merges user-centered design and technology-centered design.

At the 2011 IA Summit, usability guru Jared Spool gave a presentation on The Most Valuable UX Person in the World.

In his presentation, he said that he believed that the most valuable UX people in the future are people whose skills combine the human experience with technology. Guess what? That’s us – search engine optimizers, SEO hybrids. I was thrilled to know that we are a critical part of the future of user experience.

In the meantime, I will have a somewhat difficult time explaining what an SEO hybrid is as well as SEO in elevators. My diagram helps me explain what we do for a living.

What’s your elevator pitch? How do you explain SEO to others?

Inevitably, someone on the technical team kindly points out that the content is crawlable, and the architecture is fine. And since I don’t know Google’s algorithm, I must be wrong.

Result? A whirlwind series of conversations that yielded bruised egos, a poorly architected website with little or no search engine visibility, and frustrated clients.

How did that happen? Where were the disconnections and miscommunication?

Believe it or not, many SEO professionals, developers and other IT professionals do not understand the role of information architecture (IA) in the SEO process. In fact, this group often does not understand the role of IA in the Web development process.

These misunderstandings and misconceptions lead to bruised egos and frustrated clients. To get all web professionals on the proverbial same page, let’s review some of the differences and sources of confusion.

Understanding Information Architecture

I believe the simplest and clearest definition of information architecture comes from the Information Architecture Institute website. Information architecture is the organization and labeling of website content to support usability and findability.

There are four words you want to hear when you work on an information architecture project:

• Organization
• Labeling
• Usability
• Findability

The determination of a website’s information architecture should occur long before a site is coded and programmed.

In fact, if I read or hear the following geek-speak, I am reasonably sure that I am not talking to a qualified information architect:

• Crawlability
• Indexation
• 301 redirects (.htaccess, etc.)
• Canonicalization
• Robots exclusion
• URL workarounds
• NOFOLLOW attribute

All of these aforementioned terms are parts of technical architecture, not information architecture.

Web professionals constantly confuse information architecture with technical architecture. Because of that, technical architects end up making information architecture decisions…and that is a critical mistake. I believe user-centered design (UCD) and architecture is far more cost- and time-effective than technology-centered design.

“In the long run, technology-centered design is generally counterproductive to project and business goals”

~ James Kalbach, author of Designing Web Navigation (2007, Wiley)

So let’s go back to understanding what information architects do. Organization is grouping related content into categories and providing user-friendly access to that content via global, local, and contextual navigation.

There are many ways to organize content including, but not limited to:

• Date/time
• Alphabetical
• Geography/location
• Topic
• Target audience
• Task/process
• Attributes/facets
• Combinations

Why did an information architect choose to organize and label content on a website via facets or by target audience? Did the information architect iteratively test the organization and content labels with participants who fit the primary personas? That’s what information architects do. They do not determine content organization based on crawlability or the flowage of “link juice.”

Adapted from Information Architecture for the World Wide Web by Peter Morville and Louis Rosenfeld. Used with permission.

Here are some items I wish to know during a website’s information architecture project:

• Primary navigation. What are the labels to be presented in primary navigation? How many navigation labels will be in primary navigation? What is the order that primary navigation labels will be presented? Where will primary navigation be placed?

• Secondary navigation. Is there secondary (local) navigation for each primary navigation label? What will those labels be, and what order will these labels be presented? Where will secondary navigation be placed? If a page doesn’t contain secondary navigation, what will the layout of the page be?

• Third- and fourth-level navigation (as needed). Continue with naming conventions, order in which labels are presented, and the number of labels.

• Contextual navigation. What types of contextual navigation will be on different page templates (category, product, help, service, form, etc.)? Contextual links such as alternatives, upsells, most popular, and other related links are just as critical for findability as a primary taxonomy and associated local links. Is there an effective balance of parent-child links as well as sibling-sibling links?

• Number of links per page. How many links per page is too many for users/searchers? For example, I would expect a category page, (wayfinder) site map, and a site index to contain more links than a product or a help page. On the flip side, how many links are too few? Orphaned–page content appears less important to search engines (because there is only one link to them). And orphaned-page content seems less important to users because that content is difficult to locate and discover.

Notice that in this list, I did not once mention canonicalization, 301 redirects, NOFOLLOW attributes, and so forth. I am certainly not saying that these technical considerations are not important for SEO and the searcher experience.

Even though it might seem as if I am dismissing technical architecture, I am not. I understand the importance of providing access to content via both browsing and searching. As Peter Morville stated in his book, Ambient Findability (2007, Wiley), “You can’t use what you can’t find.”

Technical Architecture & Findability

I agree with Morville. Many technical architects agree with Morville…but with blinders on. A perfectly architected and usable website might not be accessible to search engine spiders. And technical SEO decisions should be considered and implemented.

As a Web developer, I have to make many technology decisions for clients such as:

• Server types
• Content management systems (CMS)
• Navigation types (text links, graphic images, menus)
• Coding and scripting
• Troubleshooting individual pages

Even if I don’t make final technology decisions, I am often asked to consult about those decisions from the perspective of searchers and search engines. I do not make a technology decision purely based on how a search engine interprets navigation systems and content.

First, I want to know what the IA, marketing, and usability teams have determined. Then I make technology decisions. In other words, I believe that information architecture should guide technical architecture.

Duplicate content delivery, for example, can limit direct access to desired content via the commercial Web search engines. And duplicate content delivery typically annoys and frustrates users. I know that user-generated tagging and faceted classification typically lead to duplicate content delivery.

So if I or another qualified information architect determine that a website’s content is best organized using faceted classification or user-generated tagging, I know that I will need to get a technical architect involved early in the development process to minimize the negative SEO impact.

Here is another example: menus. I hear the pros and cons of using menus for a navigation system all of the time. As an SEO, I understand why the technical team wants to implement menus: it preserves screen real estate, some search engines can crawl them (it depends on how they are coded/programmed), and “people love them.”

As an information architect and usability professional, I have to consider the failure rate of different menus (fly-out menus are more error prone than drop-down menus), the paradox of choice, and the technology used to access content.

Usability guru Jared Spool recently wrote about the 6 Epic Forces Battling Your Mega Menus, both from a human and a technical perspective.

Information architects don’t need to know Google’s algorithm or the latest URL workaround to provide SEO guidance and effective labeling advice to a technical team. They don’t need a degree in computer science. I have seen too many technology teams dismiss information architecture and usability guidance because it might harm rankings.

In reality, the organization and labeling of information will increase sales, conversions, and (yes) even search engine visibility. “It’s high time to put the ‘I’ back in IT,” said Louis Rosenfeld.

Smackdown: Which Is More Important?

I believe that a successful website architecture is a combination of an effective information architecture and corresponding technical architecture. I do not believe that technical architecture trumps information architecture. I do not believe that information architecture trumps technical architecture. I believe that technical architects and information architects must listen to and support each other.

“Information architecture is concerned with the structure and arrangement of the content and a great deal of it can be done without knowing anything about the implementation,” said Dorian Taylor, researcher, consultant and current board member of the Information Architecture Institute. “Technical architecture is concerned with the implementation of the system and a great deal of it can be done without knowing anything about the content.”

“In some ways we can say that SEO is about creating structures that are meaningful to machines—in this case, search engines—so that those machines can in turn generate structures that are meaningful to people,” Taylor continued.

We need to listen to each other instead of dismissing information architects with, “I think you are more of a UX person than an SEO,” as if their contributions to findability is less important than technical implementation. I know plenty of information architects with superb technical skills. They might know more about findability and SEO than you realize.