- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:06:02 +0100 (BST)
- To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- cc: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Joe Clark wrote: > A rather odd statement here: It seems to me par for the course in a press release: someone has added hype to something that's been around for a long time. > >By most measures, Google dominates Web searching. Now you don't have > >to be on the Web to use it. Until 1998, I was stuck on the "information dirt track", where actual download speeds of 100 bytes / sec were a rare luxury. In those circumstances I used web-by-email myself over several years. I even implemented such a service in (IIRC) '95. > >A new service called GoogleMail gives you e-mail access to the > >popular search engine. Not a bad idea, but certainly not new, and well under an hours work to implement. > >For example, GoogleMail is fielding many queries from places where > >online Internet access can be relatively expensive, like Russia and > >the Philippines. "People are creating e-mail queries offline and > >then going online just to send them," Mr. Newman explained. "Then > >they disconnect, and log back on later to download the results." Yes, that makes sense. > >The service has also drawn interest from blind users, who use > >special devices that read them their e-mail. Now those "readers" can > >handle Web searches as well. [...] Interesting. It would seem that googlemail have accomplished something. Not a technical accomplishment, but one of raising awareness and getting into the mainstream press. > Just how is Google inaccessible to screen readers? It's almost > entirely plain text. Sending results by E-mail eliminates the one or > two graphics (which already contain alt texts) and nothing more. I'll defer to Al Gilman's reply on that subject. BTW, calling it "googlemail" looks to me a lot like a case of passing off, using someone elses (deserved) reputation. That kind of (lack of) ethics puts me right off. -- Nick Kew
Received on Saturday, 24 August 2002 10:06:09 UTC