8k Content Download

[Brook Mithani]

Thispage introduces the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) international standard, including WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1, and WCAG 2.2. WCAG documents explain how to make web content more accessible to people with disabilities.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2 is developed through the W3C process in cooperation with individuals and organizations around the world, with a goal of providing a single shared standard for web content accessibility that meets the needs of individuals, organizations, and governments internationally.

A few things have changed, and we intend the updates in the related documents to support backwards compatibility in practice. The main change is that in WCAG 2.2, one success criteria (4.1.1 Parsing) is obsolete. Notes added to WCAG 2.1 and WCAG 2.0 errata address this, as explained in WCAG 2 FAQ, 4.1.1 Parsing. WCAG 2.2 also includes Notes about different languages; more information is in WCAG 2 FAQ, internationalization.

WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1, and WCAG 2.2 are all existing standards. WCAG 2.2 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.1, and WCAG 2.1 does not deprecate or supersede WCAG 2.0. W3C encourages you to use the most recent version of WCAG.

The WCAG technical documents are developed by the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (AG WG) (formerly the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group), which is part of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI).

WCAG is part of a series of accessibility guidelines, including the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) and the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG). Essential Components of Web Accessibility explains the relationship between the different guidelines.

Instead of pitching products or services, a strategic content-driven approach provides relevant and useful content to your prospects and customers to help them solve issues in their work (B2B content) or personal lives (B2C content).

Brief content reigns on Google, YouTube, and other social media platforms. But how do you write great meta descriptions, excerpts, and episode descriptions within their character-limiting requirements? Read on.

Google's automated ranking systems are designed to present helpful, reliable information that's primarily created to benefit people, not to gain search engine rankings, in the top Search results. This page is designed to help creators evaluate if they're producing such content.

Evaluating your own content against these questions can help you gauge if the content you're making is helpful and reliable. Beyond asking yourself these questions, consider having others you trust but who are unaffiliated with your site provide an honest assessment.

Also consider an audit of the drops you may have experienced. What pages were most impacted and for what types of searches? Look closely at these to understand how they're assessed against some of the questions outlined here.

Google's core ranking systems look to reward content that provides a good page experience. Site owners seeking to be successful with our systems should not focus on only one or two aspects of page experience. Instead, check if you're providing an overall great page experience across many aspects. For more advice, see our page, Understanding page experience in Google Search results.

People-first content means content that's created primarily for people, and not to manipulate search engine rankings. How can you evaluate if you're creating people-first content? Answering yes to the questions below means you're probably on the right track with a people-first approach:

We recommend that you focus on creating people-first content to be successful with Google Search, rather than search engine-first content made primarily to gain search engine rankings. Answering yes to some or all of the questions below is a warning sign that you should reevaluate how you're creating content:

There are some things you could do that are specifically meant to help search engines better discover and understand your content. Collectively, this is called "search engine optimization" or SEO, for short. Google's own SEO guide covers best practices to consider. SEO can be a helpful activity when it is applied to people-first content, rather than search engine-first content.

Google's automated systems are designed to use many different factors to rank great content. After identifying relevant content, our systems aim to prioritize those that seem most helpful. To do this, they identify a mix of factors that can help determine which content demonstrates aspects of experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness, or what we call E-E-A-T.

Of these aspects, trust is most important. The others contribute to trust, but content doesn't necessarily have to demonstrate all of them. For example, some content might be helpful based on the experience it demonstrates, while other content might be helpful because of the expertise it shares.

While E-E-A-T itself isn't a specific ranking factor, using a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T is useful. For example, our systems give even more weight to content that aligns with strong E-E-A-T for topics that could significantly impact the health, financial stability, or safety of people, or the welfare or well-being of society. We call these "Your Money or Your Life" topics, or YMYL for short.

Search quality raters are people who give us insights on if our algorithms seem to be providing good results, a way to help confirm our changes are working well. In particular, raters are trained to understand if content has strong E-E-A-T. The criteria they use to do this is outlined in our search quality rater guidelines.

Reading the guidelines may help you self-assess how your content is doing from an E-E-A-T perspective, improvements to consider, and help align it conceptually with the different signals that our automated systems use to rank content.

Something that helps people intuitively understand the E-E-A-T of content is when it's clear who created it. That's the "Who" to consider. When creating content, here are some who-related questions to ask yourself:

If you're clearly indicating who created the content, you're likely aligned with the concepts of E-E-A-T and on a path to success. We strongly encourage adding accurate authorship information, such as bylines to content where readers might expect it.

For example, with product reviews, it can build trust with readers when they understand the number of products that were tested, what the test results were, and how the tests were conducted, all accompanied by evidence of the work involved, such as photographs. It's advice we share more about in our Write high quality product reviews help page.

Many types of content may have a "How" component to them. That can include automated, AI-generated, and AI-assisted content. Sharing details about the processes involved can help readers and visitors better understand any unique and useful role automation may have served.

Overall, AI or automation disclosures are useful for content where someone might think "How was this created?" Consider adding these when it would be reasonably expected. For more, see our blog post and FAQ: How Google Search views AI-generated content.

The "why" should be that you're creating content primarily to help people, content that is useful to visitors if they come to your site directly. If you're doing this, you're aligning with E-E-A-T generally and what our core ranking systems seek to reward.

If the "why" is that you're primarily making content to attract search engine visits, that's not aligned with what our systems seek to reward. If you use automation, including AI-generation, to produce content for the primary purpose of manipulating search rankings, that's a violation of our spam policies.

Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License. For details, see the Google Developers Site Policies. Java is a registered trademark of Oracle and/or its affiliates.

The content CSS property replaces content with a generated value. It can be used to define what is rendered inside an element or pseudo-element. For elements, the content property specifies whether the element renders normally (normal or none) or is replaced with an image (and associated "alt" text). For pseudo-elements and margin boxes, content defines the content as images, text, both, or none, which determines whether the element renders at all.

The default value. Computes to none for the ::before and ::after pseudo-elements. For other pseudo-elements, the content will be the initial (or normal) content expected for that ::marker, ::placeholder, or ::file-selector-button. For regular elements or page margin boxes, this computes to contents.

The counter() function has two forms: 'counter(name)' or 'counter(name, style)'. The generated text is the value of the innermost counter of the given name in scope at the given pseudo-element. It is formatted in the specified (decimal by default).

The counters() function also has two forms: 'counters(name, string)' or 'counters(name, string, style)'. The generated text is the value of all counters with the given name in scope at the given pseudo-element, from outermost to innermost, separated by the specified string. The counters are rendered in the indicated (decimal by default).

The data type inclues a leader function: leader( ). This function accepts the keyword values dotted, solid, or space (equal to leader("."), leader("_"), and leader(" "), respectively), or a as a parameter. When supported and used as a value for content, the leader-type provided will be inserted as a repeating pattern, visually connecting content across a horizontal line.

The attr(x) CSS function retrieves the value of an attribute of the selected element, or the pseudo-element's originating element. The value of the element's attribute x is an unparsed string representing the attribute name. If there is no attribute x, an empty string is returned. The case sensitivity of the attribute name parameter depends on the document language.

3a8082e126