SEO for website

[Turan Mirza]

I ran my website through the google website checkers and it did not come out too good.

The key things it seems to be flagging are CSS usage, inefficient javascript, excessive DOM size, Avoid enormous network payloads as well as Serve images in next-gen formats such as jpeg2000 and more.

My understanding is I concentrate on the design look and feel the WYSIWYG and Xara will produce the ideal CSS, javascript etc.

Now, it could be my site and the way I've created it in Xara, but would be keen to know if others have run SEO tests on their site and has Xara done a good job?

Love to get your feedback.

I used this: https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl...re/testmysite/
as well as running the site through ASEOP11 that comes with the Xara renewal.

Turan

[Acorn]

My understanding is I concentrate on the design look and feel the WYSIWYG and Xara will produce the ideal CSS, javascript etc.

Turan, Xara does little to streamline its support files (CSS, JS). It probably calls 5 CSS files.

"excessive DOM size" is probably a Supersite with Variants. if you can avoid using a Supersite, do so. If you must have Variants go for no more than two and keep the design very simple.

Avoid Xara NavBars.

Use filename="nameOfImage" for important pictures, especially those used is different places.

"enormous network payloads" is usually cropped images that have not been optimised.

Unfortunately, you do need to concentrate on the impact of any given design choice.

That said, Xara coding is not the worst out there.

Acorn

[Gypsyjoe]

Acorn, I have been using three variants on my website. Not that I am very knowledgeable, what do you suggest for the two variants? I already know it will be a lot of work to change it but am always willing to learn. By the way why only two variants?

[gcellison]

I agree with Gypsyjoe. The new Scale to Fit Width is not very useful because you either have giant text in the wide screen or illegible text in the narrow screen (disregarding the mobile variant). Three variants seems to be a safe threshold for providing the content for the numerous sizes of devices.

[Chris M]

Acorn, I have been using three variants on my website. Not that I am very knowledgeable, what do you suggest for the two variants? I already know it will be a lot of work to change it but am always willing to learn. By the way why only two variants?

I'm not saying I'm right, just sharing what I find works for me personally. I make the desktop 1280 wide and use Scale To Fit Width in the Export Options. My mobile sites I keep at the default 480.
Text size for Normal Text I use 18 or 20. 16 is acceptable, but is a tad small on an 8" tablet. Text size can look differently for different fonts; I use Fira or Monsterrat most of the time for no other reason than they both have a wide range of variants and I like 'em.

Having more than 2 variants is just adding more things to go wrong. Not a big enough to scrap them and start again though, unless you'd enjoy doing so.

I should also add that I use (roughly) a 50px padding (margin) on the left and right for the desktop, and 20px for the mobile.

[Turan Mirza]

Thanks for the feedback. I only have two desktop and mobile. Does anyone else run their Xara sites through the google tool? or others?

[RKissane]

I have tested my sites through other speed testers and have had them come in with good ratings. The Google one you posted does not show a good rating. I have also tested with my phone and the sites come in real quick.

With all that being said, the only way you are going to really get what Google is purposing is having somebody hand code your site. I don't really think at this time it matters. In the future Google may start penalizing your site for the loading speed on page ranking.

Ray