Let us agree that all searchs should render results that are consistent and standards-compliant. However, to me it is not logical to get the same search results from both accessible and pda and I therefore have an issue supporting anything which makes them the same.

The reason that I take this stand is that accessibility on the web has nothing, if anything to do with the use of browsers that aren’t IE on a computer that may or may not be Windows based. For a user of a minority browser, a poorly rendered webpage is merely an annoyance. This kind of user probably has some choices available to them – they can wait until they get home and use their pc or go to a library or net cafe.

On the other hand, the kind of people who just plain can’t make use of mainstream technology are the people for whom accessibility is all about. For them, a poorly rendered page excludes them from society and discriminates against them. They have no choice.

The fact that ‘accessible’ websites are the ones which will work on my Mac, PDA or RiscPC is by the by. ‘Accessibility’ has become a catch all for all minority users, not just those who need accessibility. I can, and have, made web apps which work on all browsers and all most platforms, but will fail completely for a special needs user agent.

So, saying that some kid sitting on the bus playing with their myspace page has needs that are the same as person who has a genuine need for accessible sites BOILS MY FUCKING BLOOD. They aren’t the same.

Ok, I’ll give you that their needs have some overlaps. Good code benefits all. In fact very similar methods would yield positive results for both groups. But we are morally obliged to help one group.

Now I’ve got that out of the way, let me add that the needs and the optimal search results of someone using a pda for convienence should be very different from the results of a user who relies upon an user agent with an accesibility focus. And to Google’s credit, the two different niche searchs render different results for the same search terms.

I think that the need for differences is fairly obvious, so I will not insult you by rabbiting on about them here. But I will attempt to find out what the differences between the three search types are.

For a search for “wireless networking”, accessible returns http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/ where both google and pda returns http://computer.howstuffworks.com/wireless-network.htm. Now, in an ideal world, one would have to assume that link to Apple would be somehow of more relevance to someone with limited accessibility. So I used Silktide.com to measure the two sites. The results for the accessibility tests are 5.6 and 7.8 respectively. The exact opposite to what should have been. I’d love to know the reasons behind the differences.

Ok, to wind up. I agree that google should really know better. I disagree that pda users and disabled users should be treated the same when the latter are already so poorly treated on the web. There should be and is a difference in results for the two searchs, but the science that Google is using is different to that of Silktide.

Your homework, if you want it, is to determine the effect of web 2.0 methodologies such as DHTML and AJAX on special needs user agents. How do you verbally represent a DHTML rollover menu?

On your point about my tables criticism, what I said was:

[There is] a substantial and growing base of users that don’t all fall into the category of “Visually Impaired” who could benefit hugely from the functions of the new accessible search, as long as their devices can wade through the tag soup surrounding the search results themselves.

Stripping it down to basics:

1. You don’t have to have a disability to run into accessibility problems, just a non-standard user agent;
2. The functionality of Google Accessible Search should be good for such users since it helps them avoid sites with deprecated code;
3. Deprecated code will not always stop you dead in your tracks, but it may slow you down to a crawl.

I take the last point to be implicit in my statement, but there nevertheless since I said “as long as their devices can wade through the tag soup.” So I don’t see anything fallacious in that. It’s actually in agreement with your objection!

One final thing. Google can do it right: http://www.google.com/pda is valid HTML 4.01 Transitional, and the markup uses semantic principles. Google Accessible Search does not validate as HTML anything (since it has no DOCTYPE), contains errors that would prevent it from validating if it did have a DOCTYPE, and mostly ignores semantic principles.

Validation is not the be-all and end-all of accessibility, but it’s a pretty good baseline. And in this case it supports the argument that using Accessible Search with a PDA might be a pain in the arse. In truth, Accessible Search and PDA Search should accomplish the same thing, because if they did the users would all be better off.

Google Accessible Search is a long time coming and I believe that it is the first offering from a mainstream search provider which attempts to provide a quality service to those with with accesibility requirements. I’d like to point out that this is a Google labs project, that you can provide feedback and how I see this product fitting in with whole suite of Google offerings.

Google Labs was established to test and play with some interesting and perhaps non-mainstream ideas. It allows users to see what is happening at the leading edge of search technology and I think that it is important to remember that Lab offerings fall into one of two categories: not-ready for mainstream use or never going to be in mainstream use. From labs.google.com:

Google labs showcases a few of our favorite ideas that aren’t quite ready for prime time. Your feedback can help us improve them. Please play with these prototypes and send your comments directly to the Googlers who developed them.

Google Sets is a great example, it has been a member of Google labs since 2002 and while it seems quite mature and reliable, its utility is probably questionable for the majority of users.

The whole point of Google Labs is to provide the general public with access to play with new technologies, and for Google to get feedback in return. As far as I can recall, only Labs products provide anykind of feedback mechanism. Being something of an optomist, or perhaps I’m just naive, I feel that this feature is meant to be used. I’ll be writing a note to them once I finish this comment, and I hope that yourself and other critics from the blogosphere join me.

While agree that using non-standards compliant html is not cool, especially when creating an application for accessibility, I feel the argument that this will alienate all users of non-standard user agents is invalid. I don’t want to discount that it is an interesting argument, just that it isn’t applicable to this argument.

Something Google does well is to segrigate their products so that they attempt to address different segments with different start pages. This is one of Google’s strengths and one of the reasons that they got ahead in the original search engine wars, where their competitors generally tried to fit as many features into one page as possible. To demonstrate my point, may I refer to the following:
google.com/mac
pda.google.com
images.google.com

The list could go on, but I think that makes the point. Google attempts to address each niche seperately. What works in one niche may or may not work in another. Imagine having your image search and content search integrated? Try using google.com effectively on a cell phone. It just doesn’t work as well as it should, thus the niches.

Using the argument that because Accesible Search renders results in tables, first adopters and other users of new technology will be alienated is false and perhaps foolish. I wish I have the knowledge to give this falacy a name, but alas. This scenario is like complaining about a lack of performance in your sports car when filled with standard gas when the car was designed to use high-octane. The car will work, just not as well as it should.

I can ask this question, why oh why would a first adoptor use an accessible search rather than one tailored for pda and cell phones? I’ll hazard a guess that the results from pda.google.com probably render in a similar manner, and therefore a similar argument can be made against the useability of that service. This can’t be confused as being the same argument as the one against Accessible search.

So, my tirade is over for now. Yes, its bad that Google don’t use standards compliant code themselves, yes it is especially bad (evil?) when offering an accessible search. But, it is a trial, provide feedback – they want it.