SEO for ILIAS

1 Initial Problem

Users often complain that content in the public area of ILIAS is not as good indicated by Google as content on a WordPress page or similar systems. The problem has even get worst with ILIAS 6 as metadata are no longer embedded in the HEAD of an ILIAS page, see Mantis #26864.

2 Conceptual Summary

In a first step we need a concept how we could improve search engine support for ILIAS. In a second step this concept should be used to create related feature request and implement them.

Bring back Metadata in Page Header

A first step forward for a better search engine support would be to enrich the HEAD section of an ILIAS page by providing existing metadata of the content. This request is tackled in a dedicated feature request, see

• Expose LOM keywords in HTML header

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• … { Please list titles of all views (screens) of ILIAS that should be modified, newly introduced or removed. }

3.2 User Interface Details

{ For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour. }

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{ If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this. }

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

• Author of the Request: Kunkel, Matthias [mkunkel]
• Maintainer: Meyer, Stefan [smeyer] for Search and Metadata, Schmid, Fabian [fschmid] for Global Screen Service
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

• ILIAS.nrw

9 Discussion

Lorenz, Katharina [klorenz] 26 April 22: Hi Matthias, we have implemented the LOM keywords, what do you think is next? Thank you!

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.