"canadafred" <canadian_web@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Stacey wrote:
>> "canadafred" <canadian_web@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > BH wrote:
>> >> In message <10713577.50Hxs7vuPL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz
>> >> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >I couldn't help but spend a couple of minutes searching the archives.
>> >> >Some times in the past we discussed the possibility of having search
>> >> >engines that exclude all sites/pages that are not accessible. It
>> >> >doesn't take much to realise this (any blind person would beg for
>> >> >this
>> >> >feature) and it's nice to see it becoming a reality.
>> >> Would be nice if G did take note of this NG but.....
>> >> Here's a bit of background,
>> >> Accessible Web Search
>> >> T.V. Raman, a senior research scientist here at Google, is
>> >> blind, and he has just led an exciting project for us called
>> >> Google Accessible Search. This new service (currently on
>> >> Google
>> >> Labs) adds a small twist to Google web search: in addition to
>> >> finding the most relevant results from Google as usual,
>> >> Accessible Search further prioritizes results based on the
>> >> simplicity of their page layouts. When you search from the
>> >> Accessible site, you'll get results that are prioritized
>> >> based
>> >> on their usability. This tends to favour 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 emphasizes search results based on
>> >> specialized interests.
>> > Well thanks for pointing that out. A person learns something new
>> > everyday here. Today's lesson for me is:
>> > The garbage on the Internet uses alot of visual distractions.
>> Or not garbage. What it states is also that the pages render well with
>> images turned off and simplicity with page layout. Remember my site with
>> the #1's etc.
>> Trust me I use some eye candy on that one.:-) Nice and countrified.;-)
> My stupid Internet is bugging out like horse flies on bear bait. I
> wrote a really good reply about the importance of Validation and how
> the search engines need to reward good code and how it is in all our
> best interests for them to strip'em and rip'em to the bone to see what
> they are all about ... get rid of the fluff ...
> I guess that pretty sums it up., minus the clever subtleties of course.
Hmm, right now the validator is on crack. I only have 1 error that should
be. And that is one that don't hurt, this one Line 11 column 21: value of
attribute "NAME" must be a single token.<meta name="Microsoft Border"
I am getting these results and probably because the noodp is new. this is
what I have:
<meta name="googlebot" content="noodp"> - I did have "robots" but Google
didn't honor it.
So the validator is adding 3 errors because of this or was now it is fine.
Anyway, there are some errors that don't matter. And if the Googlebot thinks
my site is accessible with the errors it has then fine. This only proves
those errors don't matter.
They don't reward and it doesn't matter really for some. I did testing on
this with some pages.
If you think I can't make my mark-up totally clean you would be wrong. Check
the site out in my sig.:-) It is valid XHTML. Also the SEO / Web design /
Hosting site I am in process of doing, a many months job to get it to where
we both really like it is also valid HTML. Only because I believe if you are
going to do website design then it should validate to show you are
knowledgeable with HTML.
Crafts - Directory - Your Online Crafting Source
Sell your crafts for ***FREE*** - eCraftsOnline