What is the benefit of using XFN (XHTML Friends Network)? I've seen this on multiple blogs and social networking sites but I don't really understand why it's useful. Other than being able to style these elements with CSS3 and select them with JavaScript, what's the benefit? Do you know of any sites out there that really utilize XFN to enhance the user experience? Also, are there similar alternatives to XFN?
Do you know of any sites out there
that really utilize XFN to enhance the
user experience?
Microformats aren't meaned to show extra information on the website itself, if it was, it could be used like John. You should think in another direction, for example, maybe browsers will support microformats one day.
Search engines may find this XFN-information interesting for one or another reason to see how the world is connected; I'm not sure what they actually could do with this information. You can read about that on Wikipedia
By the way, you can find out who your friends on the web are using Google's Social Graph API
Also, are there similar alternatives to XFN?
Take a look at microformat.org's wiki
Related
I have been developing a web application which has many documents (.pdf format) which must be embedded on the site. After doing a little research, there seem to be many "services" and/or "libraries" which allow the same functionality as the <object> tag combined with an Adobe Reader plugin.
Some examples include Crocodoc.com as well as PDFobject. Although, I will admit, a side by side comparison of these two SaaS, Crocodoc would take the lead.
It has been well known for awhile now that <embed> coding is outdated, and the best methodology for .PDF implementation is the <object> tag, in a previous discussion located here on SO.
However, one does not dispute that from a basic implementation approach of having standard-pdf bookmarks, links, and a 'table of contents', it appears that the browsers built in (downloaded, whatever...) Adobe Reader plugin provides the same functionality as one of the many plug-ins or extensible libraries provided on the web.
I would like to approach all the wonderful experts here on SO to provide an objective approach to the pro's and con's of using such methodology. Feel free to use subjective opinions, but please back them with facts and a well researched answer. Thank you.
Edit
After being approached on the topic that subjective answers are not suitable for StackOverflow, please keep in mind any subjective opions must be backed by a fully endowed, truthful basis behind any possible conclusion. Every programmer and web designer implements in their own ways because of experiences as well as pros&cons, so in order to provide the best suited answer.... "When In Rome"....
I have just read a lot of different information about Data-Vocabulary.org and Schema.org about how it's good for SEO. But I'm really not sure that anyone uses it in a real site. Am I right?
If not can someone provide some links to real site with this stuff?
And second question does it make sense to use it in HTML5?
Search on Google for any restaurant, or destination covered by TripAdvisor or Yelp (in other words, any restaurant or destination) and you'll see the magic of microformats at work -- see the rating stars and other meta-information?
And yes: use them. And yes, follow schema.org guidelines. And no, it doesn't matter at all which version of HTML you use them in, so write in HTML 5 and do other good things.
Whether they help for SEO is a somewhat different question. Microformats are unlikely to have a significant influence on your site's rankings as long as you use them as suggested.
However, take a look at the pages that have them and are able to influence what a search engine displays when it lists your site. While some have argued that "there's no need to click through if all the information is summarized" this has not proven to be true in practice. (See this article http://searchengineland.com/how-to-use-rich-snippets-structured-markup-for-high-powered-seo-99081). In short, having microformats that distinguish your site from others is good for everyone.
So I've been looking into this HTML 5 Microdata, but I'm not sure if or when it is appropriate to use. I know that if used with rating and you search a website it will pull up things like video rating and article ratings etc. But for Microdata like People or Places, is that so useful that I should start implementing it into all my websites - big and small? How big of an impact will this really have on my SEO if I start using Microdata on everything?
Maybe using something like http://schema.org/ as my standard term dictionary. I think that is what Google suggests using. Here's a link to the dev of microdata http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/ which will be helpful if you are unfamiliar with microdata
Following to that Schema.org - Why You're Behind if You're Not Using It... article on SEOMoz, I must say this question is not just about microdata and Google SERPs positions. I think it has to be taken in a much wider meaning:
Some advantages:
Implementing microdata on a website DOES increase CHANCE for Rich
Snippets displayed next to your site on Google search results. You can't say 'microdata = rich snippets', but you also can't say 'no microdata = no rich snippets' :)
Having rich snippets increases users' attention to that single search result and it CAN result in more clicks => visitors on your page.
Some cons:
Some rich snippets, which can be a result of using microdata, can let users find information they're looking for directly on the search results, without actually reaching your page. eg. if user is looking for a phone number and see it on rich snippet, he doesn't have to click and visit your page.
You have to decide on your own if you can take that risk. From my own experience (and that article comments as well), that risk is quite small and if you can, you should implement microdata. Of course, 'if you can' should really mean: 'if you can and it won't need the whole site to be rebuilt' :) If you have more serious things to do on your site, you should put them in front of a queue. Today, it's only 'nice-to-have', not 'must-have'.
And just for the end - I know my answer is not just yes or not the answer, but it's because the question is not that kind of question. However, I hope it could help you make your own decision.
My answer would be "Always."
It's the emerging standard for categorizing all forms of information on the web.
Raven Tools (no affiliation) has a schema.org microdata generator that's a good place to start:
http://schema-creator.org/product.php
They have a couple stock schema templates on that page (look on the left column).
My Question is around usability. In most of the sites i have seen and developed i see taxonomy as a way a user would find something he is looking for in the site. But quite recently i have seen the concept of tagging. Where products services questions are tagged and can be found with the tagname. Is tagging an alternative to taxonomy or they should work together.
I'd say that like most things, it depends on what kind of information you're trying to organize.
For example, here on Stack Overflow, there isn't really a rigid hierarchy by which to sort the questions. They're much more organic in the sense that they can span multiple, and even unrelated, disciplines or fields and create a whole host of dynamic connections. For organizing this type of information, I think tags are an appropriate replacement for traditional, hierarchical taxonification. The decentralized, dehierarchized nature of tagging dovetails perfectly with the general organization of the site's content, especially when the site's users/community is encouraged to participate in cataloguing and organizing the information. Many blogs and social networking sites like Delicious organize their content with a series of tags as well.
Conversely, if you're trying to sell products or provide technical support, you'll probably find that tagging is not a suitable replacement for traditional taxonomic organization. If you're familiar with MSDN, which provides online documentation for developers in the Microsoft ecosystem, you'll observe that most of its content is organized into a natural hierarchy by technology/language, feature, sub-feature, etc. If you want to buy a computer from Dell, you start by narrowing down your choices: do you want a desktop, notebook, or tablet? Do you want a performance-oriented notebook, a desktop-replacement notebook, or an ultra-portable? Etc. Of course, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider implementing tags as an alternative way for users to explore the information that you have available, but in the best of cases, they will work together.
Think about the type of content you plan to host on your site and consider the most natural way to organize that information. Your users will appreciate more than anything a site that is intuitive and where they feel it is easy to locate exactly what they're looking for.
That is an argument I always found interesting, and basically I reduce to this question:
In order to found something, is better to have a hierarchical taxonomy or a flat tag-based taxonomy (maybe collaborative i.e. Folksonomy) ?
Well, there's no unique answer, but, depending on the search context, sometimes the former is more convenient and sometimes the latter is.
The best thing would be to have both kind of taxonomies, but could be difficult to manage, in particular if contents are created by people and so the classification is up to them.
One solution could be have tags inheritance, like in drupal taxonomy system.
So for instance when you want to classify a picture of your dog, you just have to select the tag: 'dogs' and automatically your picture will belong to tags: 'dogs' --> 'animals' --> 'living beings' and so on.
This question is an issue related to the human thinking:
Sure it is better, if you can find something by a tagged word. If you dont know the word/tag perfectly, you are not able to find it. Others may have taged the thing you search for with a similar, but other tag. In this case a (binary) tag search will not give you the correct (or whole) awnser.
Anyway, there is a possibility to extract a taxonomy (as long as words/tags are related) out of tags. This concept (combined with a vecor-orientated-search) can be presented to the user and will help him to find what he needs.
Although I'd just upvote Cody's answer (I did), I would also like to add something:
The field of usability used to be within the realm of ergonomics before it grew up. So I think it is appropriate to refer to one of ergonomics' core principles.
Every person has a unique set of dimensions, so there is no single set of “correct dimensions” for e.g. a chair. The best dimensions are adjustable dimensions that provide a reasonable range of variability.
It is possible to apply this principle to website navigation as well and provide multiple ways of reaching the same content, so that people with different habits can find stuff using the way they are most comfortable with.
The Semantic Web is an awesome idea. And there are a lot of really cool things that have been done using the semantic web concept. But after all this time I am beginning to wonder if it is all just a pipe dream in the end. If we will ever truly succeed in making a fully semantic web, and if we are not going to be able to utilize semantic web to provide our users a deeper experience on the web is it worth spending the time and extra effort to ensure FULLY semantic web pages are created by myself or my team?
I know that semantic pages usually just turn out better (more from attention to detail than anything I would think), so I am not questioning attempting semantic page design, what I am currently mulling over, is dropping the review and revision process of making a partially semantic page, fully semantic in hopes of some return in the future.
On a practical level, some aspects of the semantic web are taking off:
1) Semantic markup helps search engines identify key content and improves keyword results.
2) Online identity is a growing concern, and semantic markup in links like rel='me' help to disambiguate these things. Autodiscovery of social connections is definitely upcoming. (Twitter uses XFN markup for all of your information and your friends, for example)
3) Google (and possibly others) are starting to pay attention to microformats like hCard and hCalendar to gather greater information about people and events going on. This feature is still on the "very new" list, but these microformats are useful examples of the semantic web.
It may take some time for it all to get there, but there are definite possible benefits. I wouldn't put a huge amount of effort into it these days, but its definitely worth keeping in mind when you're developing a site.
Yahoo and Google have both announced support for RDFa annotations in your HTML content. Check out Yahoo SearchMonkey and Google Rich Snippets. If you care about SEO and driving traffic to your site, these are good ways to get better search engine coverage today.
Additionally, the Common Tag vocabulary is an RDFa vocabulary for annotating and organizing your content using semantic tags. Yahoo and Google will make use of these annotations, and existing publishing platforms such as Drupal 7 are investigating adopting the Common Tag format.
I would say no.
The reason I would say this is that the current return for creating a fully semantic web page right now is practically zero. You will have to spend extra time and effort, and there is very little to show for it now.
Effort is not like investing, however, so doing it now has no practical advantage. If the semantic web does start to show potential, then you can always revisit it and tap into that potential later.
It should be friendly to search engines, but going further is not going to provide good ROI.
Furthermore, what are you selling? A lot of the purpose behind being semantic beyond being indexable is easier 3rd party integration and data mining (creating those ontologies). Are these desirable traits for your data sets? If you are selling advertisement, making it easier for others to pull in your content is probably not going to be helpful.
It's all about where you want to spend your time.
You shouldn't do anything without a requirement. Otherwise, how do you know if you've succeeded? Do you have a requirement for being semantic? How much? How do you measure success? How do you measure return on investment?
Don't do anything just because of fads, unless keeping up with fads is a requirement.
Let me ask you a question - would you live in a house or buy a car that wasn't built according to a spec?
"So is this 4x4 lumber, upheld with a steel T-Beam?"
"Nope...we managed to rig the foundation on on PVC Piping...pretty cool, huh."