In a similar way to saying a subtitled movie isn't acessible. Sure, it meets the needs of the Deaf community - but not people with low/no vision.
Google have done some great things in accessibility - and I regularly work with them. But this specific issue has remained unresolved for too long now.
Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense? If something isn't accessible to everyone, it isn't accessible? (Genuine question. Either answer would be valid. I'd prefer to know how it's used in common parlance.)
If you look at, for example, the WCAG rules on accessibility, you'll see that there are various levels of conformance. Accessibility isn't just about blind people, or deaf people, or people with tremors, or people with cognative impairments. It is about all of us. You and me.
One day, you will be old. Your eyes won't be as good as they were and your joints will be stiff. Then someone will tell you that Windows 2038 is accessible because it is voice controlled. That's nice for you, but not much help for someone who has lost their voice.
Sorry, I'm rambling. Accessibility means including everyone.
Most new ATMs are installed at a low height. That's great for wheelchair users, but it's a serious problem for taller people with spinal problems.
Accessibility is frequently a compromise between different user groups. In this case, the extra functionality that you require would add complexity to the UI and the underlying code base - complexity that may constitute an accessibility impediment for other user groups.
You can use Ubuntu and map whatever you like to whatever else you like. My elderly grandparents can't use Ubuntu, because the interface is too complex. UI quirks that you or I wouldn't notice are hard roadblocks for people with cognition and memory impairments. Simplicity, reliability and consistency are accessibility features.
(disclaimer: that this does not mean I think an effort should not even be made. But there will always be outliers as that is the painful reality we live in. I do think OP is justified in their complaint and wanting more accessibility. But I don't think it is their "right" to expect that demand to be met)
In some places, a wheelchair bound person can't access half of buildings, or rooms (important ones like toilets) within buildings. The streets themselves and transport can have access barriers like stairs.
In some other places, building codes/rules demand that even private homes are accessible. To an individual, this can be frustrating. Why are they forced to build a ramp using their space and their money? No one they know even uses a wheelchair. Is all this for that one time in 12 years when someone needs it?
I don't know the answers, personally, nor do I have serious opinions about how all this should be handled. However... I do think that if you are making an argument for wheelchair ramps as standard building code, you have to be making that argument at the city/society level.... the needs of all wheelchair people to access all buildings/places in a city. You can't reason about it via a single ramp and its users or lack thereof.
Obviously, it never gets to 100%. But, it does get pretty good. Compare many types of accessibility now to 20 or 50 years ago... acheivements have been achieved, with real impact on people's lives.
It's not, otherwise closed captioned videos wouldn't be released without audio description tracks (and vice versa).
Those were from before this blog post (most recent was December). Sounds like the problem is prioritization, not convincing them it's a good idea.