I've read your post again, just to make sure that my comment was within scope. A better answer would have been: That's disgusting, you'd think that Google would know better. Have you left feedback? It seems that Google consider only people with some, but diminished vision as potential users of an accessible search engine.

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?