Is your web presence working hard enough? What the Webranking results reveal about the state of corporate websites

Simon Lande, CEO, Magusi l d @ ksimon.lande@magus.co.uk

27 January 2011

Introduction

Magus ActiveStandards™ used to analyse• Magus ActiveStandards™ used to analyse every website in the H&H Webranking

• Quantifiable metrics for how the sites are performing across 3 key areas:

o Accessibility

o Usabilityo Usability

o SEO

How we did it

Sample 100 pages chosen from each site• Sample 100 pages chosen from each site• Each page tested against 19 best practice

website standards• Sites scored for key indicators ofSites scored for key indicators of

effectiveness: SEO, accessibility and usabilityusability

• Plus overall quality score based on average errors per page

Overall best and worst performers by countryp y y

# Country Av. # Country Av.1 South Korea (1) 1.46 31 Belgium (13) 4.442 Iceland (2) 1.63 32 Russia (32) 4.9( ) ( )3 Czech Republic (3) 1.96 33 India (1) 4.914 UK (99) 2.4 34 Saudi Arabia (23) 5.065 Japan (6) 2.6 35 Greece (7) 5.226 Germany (60) 2.67 36 Cyprus (1) 5.267 S i (26) 2 73 37 Q t (12) 5 527 Spain (26) 2.73 37 Qatar (12) 5.528 Switzerland (47) 2.74 38 Canada (2) 5.579 Norway (20) 2.83 39 China (9) 5.6210 Sweden (98) 2.9 40 Bahrain (10) 6.03

Overall best and worst performers by country# 1South Koreap y ySouth Korea

(1.46)# 2

Iceland# 3# 4

(1.63) # 3Czech Republic

(1.96)

# 4UK

(2.4)

# Country Av. # Country Av.1 South Korea (1) 1.46 31 Belgium (13) 4.442 Iceland (2) 1.63 32 Russia (32) 4.9( ) ( )3 Czech Republic (3) 1.96 33 India (1) 4.914 UK (99) 2.4 34 Saudi Arabia (23) 5.065 Japan (6) 2.6 35 Greece (7) 5.226 Germany (60) 2.67 36 Cyprus (1) 5.267 S i (26) 2 73 37 Q t (12) 5 527 Spain (26) 2.73 37 Qatar (12) 5.528 Switzerland (47) 2.74 38 Canada (2) 5.579 Norway (20) 2.83 39 China (9) 5.6210 Sweden (98) 2.9 40 Bahrain (10) 6.03

Overall best and worst performers by countryp y y

# 38# 38Canada(5.57)

# Country Av. # Country Av.1 South Korea (1) 1.46 31 Belgium (13) 4.442 Iceland (2) 1.63 32 Russia (32) 4.9( ) ( )3 Czech Republic (3) 1.96 33 India (1) 4.914 UK (99) 2.4 34 Saudi Arabia (23) 5.065 Japan (6) 2.6 35 Greece (7) 5.226 Germany (60) 2.67 36 Cyprus (1) 5.267 S i (26) 2 73 37 Q t (12) 5 527 Spain (26) 2.73 37 Qatar (12) 5.528 Switzerland (47) 2.74 38 Canada (2) 5.579 Norway (20) 2.83 39 China (9) 5.6210 Sweden (98) 2.9 40 Bahrain (10) 6.03

Overall best and worst performers by country# 20

Netherlands(3.63)p y y

# 23Italy

(3 69)# 24

US (3.69)US(3.7)

# Country Av. # Country Av.1 South Korea (1) 1.46 31 Belgium (13) 4.442 Iceland (2) 1.63 32 Russia (32) 4.9( ) ( )3 Czech Republic (3) 1.96 33 India (1) 4.914 UK (99) 2.4 34 Saudi Arabia (23) 5.065 Japan (6) 2.6 35 Greece (7) 5.226 Germany (60) 2.67 36 Cyprus (1) 5.267 S i (26) 2 73 37 Q t (12) 5 527 Spain (26) 2.73 37 Qatar (12) 5.528 Switzerland (47) 2.74 38 Canada (2) 5.579 Norway (20) 2.83 39 China (9) 5.6210 Sweden (98) 2.9 40 Bahrain (10) 6.03

UK results overviewUK results overview

# 5# 5SEO(5/10)

25% top

100 sites# 5

Accessibility(6.8/10)

# 14Usability

(7/10)

Accessibility: Key facts

Providing disabled users with equivalent• Providing disabled users with equivalent access to information and services, to that provided to able bodied usersprovided to able-bodied users

• Legal requirement in certain countries• Accessible websites are more usable and

work better on mobile deviceswork better on mobile devices• The W3C have developed an international

t d d f b it ibilit W bstandard for website accessibility: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

Accessibility: Key findings

145 (16%)

Score 9 - 10

Score 5 - 8.9

302 (33%)473 (51%) Score 0 - 4.9

Majority of top performers (green) are in Northern & Central EuropeNorthern & Central Europe30% of all pages analysed had images with missing “ALT” attributesmissing ALT attributes

SEO: Key facts

The practice of optimising web pages to• The practice of optimising web pages to improve their ranking within ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ search engine resultsorganic search engine results

• Analysis measures how well web content is structured for “findability” and keyword promotion within search engines

• Good SEO is achieved through careful planning and consideration of the websiteplanning and consideration of the website content

SEO: Key findings27(3%)27(3%)

Score 9 - 10

279 (30%)

Score 5 - 8.9

279 (30%)

Score 0 - 4.9

614 (67%)

35% of pages analysed were missing meta description 10% had missing or single word title tag content10% had missing or single word title tag content

Usability: Key facts

How well web visitors can use a site to• How well web visitors can use a site to achieve their goals, and how satisfied they are with that processare with that process

• Requires an understanding of user needs• But also an on-going process of website QA

to track issues such as link integrityto track issues such as link integrity

Usability: Key findings

170 (18%)

181 (20%) Score 9 - 10170 (18%)

Score 5 - 8.9

569 (62%)Score 0 - 4.9

( )

10% of pages analysed had one or more broken links on thembroken links on themUS and Canada near bottom of country league table

Conclusions

Basic preventable mistakes still widespread• Basic, preventable, mistakes still widespread – even in web-savvy companies

• To perform well in any of these areas requires an effective web governance framework:

o Shared website standards across an organisation

o Editor training and skill development

o Tools and processes to measure compliance with website o oo s a d p ocesses to easu e co p a ce t ebs testandards, and support effective on-going QA

Thank you

Simon LandeCEO, Magus

simon.lande@magus.co.ukwww.magus.co.uk+44 (0)20 7019 4700

Find out how yourwebsite ranks:website ranks:

»Talk to Simon or Tom