> What does being MIT licensed have to do with it

It's a non commercial non government project.

> And please, don't anyone dare chime in with the the standard "if people want a feature in open source they can 'simply' implement it themselves".

Already talked about it in the parent comment, would be interesting if you could respond to that instead of asking nobody mention it.

> UI technologies that don't include accessibility are simply not good enough.

Agreed, most software is not good enough. Especially beta versions of personal projects.

> It's not like accessible options don't exist.

It's not enough for something to exist it has to be pervasive and perfect to not be caught in a project task list for something like this. This point is the topic of conversation.

>It's a non commercial non government project.

Yes I know that, what's that got to do with not having accessibility?

And no it doesn't have to be perfect, it comes down to what we consider acceptable.

I am thankful to the author for not thinking like you, as if they did perhaps there would be no WASM Studio at all as they wouldn't have the time/knowledge/perseverance to continue writing the app far enough to be accessible and perfect for everyone. Luckily, they did the really hard work of getting something that's usable to at least a few of us! And it's been really useful to me as I am trying to write a language targeting WASM.

> Yes I know that, what's that got to do with not having accessibility?

Many (most?) will have different accessibility expectation for software from each of these categories, particularly since in many jurisdictions government and commercial have accessibility laws to follow or expectations on service because of payment/funding. In this case the question is what does accessibility have to do with the project not the other way around and the answer is "whatever people want to contribute to the project" not "what simonh finds acceptable of the project".

> And no it doesn't have to be perfect, it comes down to what we consider acceptable.

But you don't decide what's considered acceptable for someone else's freely available open source software they do. It's also not translated into every language and won't run well on every device. A very large portion of the world can't use it but it's just someone sharing what they've managed to make not someone saying everyone in the world will find the software acceptable or that they owe any functionality out of it to anyone else.

> And please, don't anyone dare chime in with the the standard "if people want a feature in open source they can 'simply' implement it themselves".

Indeed, how dare anyone call you out on demanding that others invest time and effort that you won't.