Google Tests Accessible Search Page

[Webnauts]

"Google is testing a version of its popular search engine that would allow those with vision problems to more easily use the site. Called Accessible Search, the page is different from normal Google Web search in that it also evaluates site usability in ranking results..."
http://www.betanews.com/article/Goog...age/1153424136

Also don't miss our article about this issue too: Accessible Web Search for the Visually Impaired.

Don't tell me now, that Google does not care about Web Standards. :)

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

"Google is testing a version of its popular search engine...
.
.
.
Don't tell me now, that Google does not care about Web Standards. :)

Google Accessible Search is a project from Google Labs. It looks like Google has recognized the need for providing their resources to the visually impaired, which also can apply to other handicapped individuals. Here are the contents of the FAQ:

Accessible Search FAQ

What is Google Accessible Search?

Accessible Search is an early Google Labs product designed to identify and prioritize search results that are more easily usable by blind and visually impaired users. Regular Google search helps you find a set of documents that is most relevant to your tasks. Accessible Search goes one step further by helping you find the most accessible pages in that result set.

How does Accessible Search work?

In its current version, Google Accessible Search looks at a number of signals by examining the HTML markup found on a web page. It tends to favor pages that degrade gracefully --- pages with few visual distractions and pages that are likely to render well with images turned off. Google Accessible Search is built on Google Co-op's technology, which improves search results based on specialized interests.

Why is Google offering this?

Accessible Search is a natural and important extension of Google's overall mission to better organize the world's information and make it universally accessible. Google Accessible Search is designed to help the visually challenged find the most relevant, useful and comprehensive information, as quickly as possible.

In the past, visually impaired Google users have often waded through a lot of inaccessible websites and pages to find the required information. Our goal is to provide a more useful and accessible web search experience for the blind and visually impaired.

How do you decide which sites are "accessible" and which are not?

Broadly, Google defines accessible websites and pages as content that the blind and visually challenged can use and consume using standard online technology, and we've worked with a number of organizations to determine which websites and pages meet those criteria. Our methods for identifying accessible pages and content are always evolving; Currently we take into account several factors, including a given page's simplicity, how much visual imagery it carries and whether or not it's primary purpose is immediately viable with keyboard navigation.

How can sites make their content more accessible to the blind?

Some of the basic recommendations on how to make a website more useable and accessible include keeping Web pages easy to read, avoiding visual clutter -- especially extraneous content -- and ensuring that the primary purpose of the Web page is immediately accessible with full keyboard navigation. There are many organizations and online resources that offer Website owners and authors guidance on how to make websites and pages more accessible for the blind and visually impaired. The W3C publishes numerous guidelines including Web Content Access Guidelines that are helpful for Website owners and authors. Broad adherence to these guidelines is one way of ensuring that sites are universally accessible.

©2006 Google Inc.

[Webnauts]

Dan isn't that a similar project with our own web directory project? :)

[jawn_tech]

The step is a good move toward greater accessability standards, for sure. The things they're looking for seems reasonable.

Anything for better accessibility for the differently abled, I'm all about it.

Although there are many Deaf websites with content largely in video -- I'm just hoping such sites aren't eventually pushed to the far back as time goes on, in a general sense (not specifically the visually-impaired beta search, for obvious incompatibility reasons).

I guess I see a day when SE's have such artificial intelligence that can analyze content of all forms, including sign language video, creating a bridge between Deaf and blind world. If any other fellow programmers or programming students ever want to research the idea of such a Hellen Keller type of SE, let's do lunch! (thinking out loud)

[google junky]

The results just don't add up.
Wouldn't you think that the accessibility results would be lower than regular web results?
I wont say this happens everytime but it is funny though.
The web results number problem was already brought up in another thread by a member on WPW.



Google Web Search for "Horse" 32,500,000 results

Google Accessibility Search for "Horse" 37,200,000 results

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by google junky

The results just don't add up.
Wouldn't you think that the accessibility results would be lower than regular web results?
I wont say this happens everytime but it is funny though.
The web results number problem was already brought up in another thread by a member on WPW.

At this moment searching for "web site accessibility", I found my site in:

1. google.com position 24 out of 155,000,000

2. accessible search position 22 out of 1,010,000,000

Just for your keeping your statistics objective.

[jawn_tech]

Ironically -- or telling...

"Accessible"

Google search = 761,000,000

Accessible search = 92,900,000

Must be there are more sites that talk about "accessible" than actually are accessible.

Interesting. Worth looking into.

[Webnauts]

Jawn_tech it is still in a test phase so far I know. And if that is true, when they are done, sites shall not rank higher there, or even shall disappear.
While it is planned to index only accessible web sites. :)

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by google junky

The results just don't add up.
Wouldn't you think that the accessibility results would be lower than regular web results?
I wont say this happens everytime but it is funny though.
The web results number problem was already brought up in another thread by a member on WPW.

Google Web Search for "Horse" 32,500,000 results

Google Accessibility Search for "Horse" 37,200,000 results

I think the results problem is related to the general problem Google has with the number of results for a particular search from different locations. Webnauts and I notice this issue quite frequently as I am in the central US and he is in Germany. Google's search is directed to what it believes to be the closest data center to the requester, often yielding slightly different (or vastly different in some cases) results. However, as their accessible search is still in the lab, it is probably drawing results from a fixed data center, probably not the one you get routed to on a general search.

Narasinha

[google junky]

Narasinha: You are saying that the Accissibilty search isn't using different data centers?

I do ralize it is still something in the works.
This would make a bit more since.

1. Site gets marked as accessible or not when a regular crawl is done.
2. The pre-evaluation for accessibility keeps results from being slow.
3. Each datacenter can work off of the already evaluated list of sites to know which should be there.
4. You get your results

It seems silly to have just one place to get these results. That would also mean that the accessible search is only working with english results also?

[netndx]

nice to see accessibility coming on the table. It demonstrates a maturing of the space in my opinion.

[astro]

An interesting concept accessibility and Google.

Hi Everyone

This subject got me to join the forum. If Google made accessibility an issue and thus ranked sites within the mainstream according to w3c guidelines then web designers world wide will have their work cut out. The cost alone will be prohibative. W3C would argue this, but then they are Dracula in charge of the blood bank in a way.

What I suspect is being mentioned here is a second division ranking system thus effectively segregating the vision impaired members of our community.

Hmm.... this would have the more fanatical members screaming from the highest mountains "Foul"

Both the DDA in the UK and The ADA the other side of the pond does mention if you provide goods and services then those goods and services must be equally accessible to all. This includes the internet. I believe in the States you call it section 508???

It also means a revolution in web design. Gone will be subtle color changes and those nice pastel shades for text against a slightly darker shade background so loved by web builders these days. No use saying for vision impaired people please click on the RED link (seen that on a government site) No rotating gif's (Not a great pity that, but they do confuse many text readers)Choices of color mixtures will have to be thought out. Links can effectively disappear to partialy sighted and the colour blind if the contrast is not sufficient. And TEXT in Arial 9pt or lower.........Oh never. Alt Tags will positively blossom everywhere listing all images in graphic prose.

The major W3C individuals were gradually employed by corporate America to "Advise" and steer W3C policy into cost effective (err...cheap) solutions.

Is making a second Google search engine for Blind people not the same???? An effort of the number one search engine to comply to the ADA???? A sort of Magoogle?????

P.S. I rebelled a while back and now only build sort of inaccessible sites.

[jawn_tech]

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.

Originally Posted by astro

Both the DDA in the UK and The ADA the other side of the pond does mention if you provide goods and services then those goods and services must be equally accessible to all. This includes the internet.

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.

[astro]

Ok, so I was a bit OTT with my post last night, sorry. But the fact remains The US has been debateing this for years...and years....hence the 508 regulation which attempts to set the standard on all US government sites.

The loopholes in the accessibility laws are firmly plugged by the human rights act this has already been tested in courts in the US and Australia and won cases. The 2000 olympics website paid 20,000 dollars (AUS) to a blind man for ruining his whole Olympic experience, even the paraolympic site was in accessible. The US Blind association (NFB?) won against a major internet player. In both these cases Corporate America responded by "paying off" "employing" or "sponsoring" the protagonists thus removing them from the argument. Indiviuals did well out of it. The blind of the world didn't.

If Google makes accessibility an issue then the WWW will shudder, scream and complain bitterly but have to comply. But can you make Flash accessible?? Don't know been out of touch for too long on my Greek mountain but an interesting question

A few years ago GAP made the decision not to be accessible, it was not cost effective for them and not their market place, you can argue the ethics of this but I admire their honesty!

smiles
Astro

[jawn_tech]

Valid points made, astro.

So many types of media on the internet.

I guess it all boils down to 'reasonable' accomodation without undue burden. Kind of a generic statement, I know. A lot of gray areas, for sure.

[astro]

You hit the nail on the head.

'Undue burden' is the getout clause provided for not being accessible and not having to do anything about it.

In which case can google now place 'undue burden' onto the WWW?

From my experience providing an alternative search option giving different results will have the Blind and partially sighted community asking "why should we be different because we are optically challenged?" (the word blind is not in polite use these days I am told) We should be able to get the same results as everyone else and be able to use assistive technology to surf the same sites as everyone else."

On a personal level I would welcome a move into all search results from Google if it affects ranking points across the board. Most of my competitors within my business would be left stranded buying me coffees in the local coffee shops and asking (maybe in Greek) " 'scuse me mister P what is 'ccessibility???" whilst with a only few minutes work I could be totally accessible....again.

But I question the need for this. I also question how do you define the standard form of assistive technology. Again in my experience the government designers and web professionals all have expensive assistive programs. Joe Public cannot afford these so use older (and often free) programs. I still have a copy of "Brookes talk" created a few years ago by Brookes university in Oxford (UK)It is a simple program and I had their permission to give it away to all the disabled people I was then working with. (also got it in Spanish somewhere!) I always disagreed with the W3C accessibility guys on what was accessible. I still maintain if you can switch off the monitor and still surf the site then that site is accessible, anything else is hogwash. They disagree there must be other factors concidered.


Therefore I ask again the original question

"Is this google's way of complying with the ADA,DDA and 508? and who (ahem) within the W3C has been taken onboard to advise on this??????"

Here we go MIB knocking on my door again.....
smiles
</end>

[Webnauts]

We published today on our web site this article too:
Accessible Web Search for the Visually Impaired.

[astro]

I read the article with interest, there is no change in the arguments being presented at all when compared to articles being written 6 or 7 years ago. Nothing is new and the Internet is still by and large inaccessible. It could be argued that the problems experienced by visually impaired are still the same. Hence the same reasons presented for accessibility. But if the reasons being presented are not commercially viable then they will never be implemented.

Threats of court action seem to fall on deaf ears and even large organisations who can afford their own design team have turned a blind eye....OK.. pun intended.

A retro-step was made by the accessibility lobby themselves when Bobby (the easiest test for accessibility) became a bit of software you had to pay for. Surely this product development could have been funded by other means?

Anarchy rules the Internet, always has done, the one way to obtain an accessible Internet is not to legislate it by Governments or to offer an alternative search option. But to make it a requirement to being listed anywhere.........

Now that would set the cat among the pigeons.

[Webnauts]

Everyone has to do his part. We build and optimize our web sites and of our customers also with accessibility in mind.

If we just say: Anyway in the Internet rules anarchy, it is obvious that it will remain an anarchy.

Look a head and not in the past or present, and do you part. :)

Heretismous apo tin Germania (greek) = Greetings from Germany.

[anuvatech]

Thanx,I got the solution after reading the discussion