The basis of solidarity is "an injury to one of us is an injury to all of us."

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.

You know those tactile paving bumps at pedestrian crossings? They're used by blind people as a navigation marker. Wheelchair users hate tactile paving, because it's extremely uncomfortable to roll over and can cause stability problems.

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.

That sounds incredibly utopic. Anyone at any time can have a completely new disability which renders any product unusable to them. It is not reasonable to expect companies to have a moral obligation to accommodate every single human being on the planet. Nor would it be economically viable for many products.

(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)

To a certain extent, accessibility as a value, means doing some things despite their unfavorable economics. The proverbial example is wheelchair access.

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.

> Is accessibility generally treated in such a binary sense?

It's not, otherwise closed captioned videos wouldn't be released without audio description tracks (and vice versa).