WeDispatch 1.5.6: eleven articles, and titles that fit
Eleven new in-depth articles on accessibility, audio monetisation and technical formats, plus a pass over the titles and descriptions that decide whether a link gets clicked.
This version does not touch the product. It covers the knowledge around it: what we publish about audio in news, and how those pages present themselves when someone meets them in a list of search results.
Eleven in-depth articles, across both languages
The blog gains eleven articles, six in English and five in French, each written on a question that genuinely keeps coming up in conversations with newsrooms.
On the regulatory side, Directive (EU) 2016/2102 is covered for what it actually requires of the public sector, in both languages. France's RGAA referential now has its own article: what the referential is, how a conformance rate is calculated on a sample of pages, what an accessibility statement must contain, and what the version 5 announced for late 2026 changes. It is the article we would have liked to hand over the first time a communications team asked us whether an audio version raises their score.
On monetisation, one article covers midroll advertising applied to a news article (where the break has to fall, how many to run, the length below which it is not worth it) in both languages. On the technical side, word-level timestamps and signature voice each get a long treatment, where only a glossary entry existed. And two English articles open new ground: what audio actually does and does not do for search rankings, and what audio changes for a small American community newsroom.
Two of them say things marketing would phrase differently. The RGAA article states that a badly integrated audio player can lower a conformance rate, buttons with no accessible label, controls unreachable by keyboard, autoplay that cannot be interrupted. The community news article states that audio does not bring new readers; it retains the ones you have and reaches them at times no text product reaches. Both are true, and documentation that only says the convenient half helps nobody decide.
Like the rest, these articles will be narrated automatically, with no intervention.
Titles and descriptions that fit the window
A page title and its description are not decoration: they are the only two lines on which someone decides to open a link or move to the next one. When they run past the displayed length they are cut mid-word, and the sentence meant to convince stops before its verb.
Thirteen existing articles therefore had their title and description rewritten to fit what is actually shown, without losing what they said. The work covered pages that already appear in search results, not the whole blog, blind-rewriting copy that works is a reliable way to break it.
The glossary gets metadata of its own
Glossary pages had a small architectural problem: the same sentence served both as the definition displayed at the top of the page and as the description shown in search results. Those are two different exercises. A definition has to be exact and stand on its own; a description has to make opening the page worthwhile.
Eleven terms now have a title and a description written specifically for search results, independent of the page text. The displayed definition has not moved by a word, that was the whole point of separating the two rather than sacrificing one for the other.
What it changes for you
Nothing in your account, nothing in your integrations. But if you are looking for a precise answer on accessibility, audio ad placement or synchronisation formats, there is now a fair chance it is written somewhere on this site, and listenable, like everything else.
Give your articles a voice with WeDispatch
This blog is itself voiced by WeDispatch. Curious how it sounds on your content?
Book a demo