Over the years though, you can't really fault the logic, per
se, of either google or yahoo.
The primary important factor, is that a page is somewhere near what it claims to be; by either title, description or in page text.
Styling, is and should be secondary, if not less. (Forgive me designers, but you know what I mean)
Its about relevant matches, rather than beautiful matches.
In fact, it must be even more basic than that: its text matching. Similar to any search (local) engine, it must work from this point, downwards (any in-built and customised algorithms).
We shall see
if this can even change a lot, looking to the future.
WC3, and the likes, were put forth a while back, but if a page is readable and the result (with regard to information) is what you wished; well thats pretty much it.
In retrospect, nothing much has changed with respect to accessabilitiy. You don't see many with phonetic and visual agents, and the like. In fact, or it seems that flash has become more prevalent (as it might, given modern influences, etc..) As I see it and should anyone care, is that things have gotten worse. Only today, I saw 76 errors on the main page alone, of a site. However, google returned it for what the owner wanted (it was about what it claimed).
Fair play to those that try and succeed, but Matt has access to statistics which make him very familiar to the "human condition", perhaps?