But it is a constant pattern with Google. See https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2014/12/do-all-google-employees-hav... and https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2015/11/googles-yellow-is-too-mello... for two examples. I'm sure you can find more.

And, yes, I am being rude. I am in pain and it sucks. I've tried being polite for five years and the bug hasn't got any significant attention. Now it has.

Come on, your second example is silly at best. You are seriously saying that the middle O in their Google logo has bad contrast, and therefore they don't care about accessibility?

And your first example doesn't even mention that there is a specially designed high-contrast mode for android which fixes the readability issues for those who need it, and Chrome has a text scaling option which can increase the font size and will actually wrap in the way you want, and android itself has a "large text mode" which will achieve much of the same.

Google isn't perfect, but those examples aren't exactly doing you any favors trying to show the issues.

I work at Google and have colleagues with accessibility needs, so the idea that nobody there does is false.

Many of the comments in the bug you linked in the original blog post are just about people with extra buttons they want to use. It doesn't seem like an accessibility motive for fixing it was figured out until just this past November.

It's not rude. It looks like the truth. Google UI decisions show a huge bias toward specific setups and preferences. Just look at how Google Maps displays on a low-resolution desktop to see what I'm talking about. The new, bloated Gmail design is another example..."I have infinite RAM and bandwidth so this is great!" The average Google employee is 29 years old, and the average one working on a UI is way younger. They're also, generally, super fit rock climbers with 20/20 vision. If This demographic is describing you pretty well then it might be hard to see the bias.