Firstly, welcome to WPW astro. Your first post -- glad to have you in the forum.

I personally am not speaking as W3's loudest advocate. On the contrary, my compliance is simply the "when in Rome" thing. You get the idea.

Also not all of my sites that I contribute work to -- either they don't validate or maybe they're not accessible. Yet. Working on that.

Just to offer a differing viewpoint on a couple things though.

As far as Google's Accessible search, I can't agree it's segregation. I see it as an extention, or rather a supplement to Google's search product that narrows down their database to do what it says, "prioritize search results that are more easily usable by blind and visually impaired users." One could say it's much like an advanced search, except a preformatted way with a single goal in mind. It's accessing the same stuff, but sorted differently, prioritizing specific records (sites) that would be most beneficial to those target users.

I hardly would concur anyone could cry foul for simply creating an extra feature that helps blind people find what they're looking for.

On the other hand, one could also argue that non-accessible websites themselves are a form of segregation. Sort of like having steps be the access to a building, with no wheelchair ramp.

Be that as it may, (or may not, just an opinion here, and I myself am not even exempt completely for the time being), accessibility is still a good thing to shoot for when possible and feasible.

That's a terrific point. Here in the US it's being debated though, whether it includes the internet or not. Time will tell, I'm sure.

Now that will cost you all 2 cents.