Notably, none of this matters if you aren't an entitled jerk and make accessibility features an option!!

There's been a new trend in modern videogames to show you a screen with a few accessibility options before the game even finishes starting. I am not disabled, and yet often feel like I benefit from some options or others.

Stop pretending you know better than your customers/users/visitors. Let them make the choices that make your product best for their usages. Stop treating users like children and we stop having these kinds of problems.

Hey bro, it's unnecessary to call people jerks. Assume they're ignorant at worse, or really incapable of juggling all plates. Running a small software shop, especially a startup, is extremelly hard and stressful. You're constantly struggling to survive financially. To a lot of folks, this alone already takes up everything they have to give.

I say this with full understanding of the situation you are describing: ignoring accessibility is not a reasonable cost saving measure, to a degree is immoral, and ignores that almost everyone will be temporary or permanently in need of accessibility at some point.

Not every object needs accessibility - a flashlight might not need braille - but this should be the absolute exception that proves a business is viable in its delivery.

I think it’s only immoral to ignore it if you know it’s an issue in the first place. I was never taught about it in undergrad. I knew that blind people existed, but hadn’t been around a blind person using a computer to appreciate what a pain in the ass it could be.

Whether it’s from disregard or ignorance, the end result for users is the same: lack of accessibility. I don’t think the well meaning but ignorant person is bad, though. I’m sure I’ve inadvertently made software that was challenging in ways I’d never have anticipated. “Click Cancel in the next 10 seconds to stop erasing your hard drive. 9. 8.” (Guy with ALS desperately tries to move the cursor over to the Cancel button.)

There are so many ways a person’s abilities can be different that the norm. Someone can be quite empathetic and still miss a lot of things they could be doing better.

It's not about saving costs. When you don't know how you're gonna pay next month salaries and bills, you don't have mental capacity to think about screen readers, font sizes or whatever

Agreed, despite your justifications being cost-driven. A business is supposed to deliver. Accessibility is part of that. Much like we wouldn't accept rotten food at a restaurant in whole or in part, we shouldn't be okay with leaving out accessibility to at least some standard. If a restaurant can't deliver and serves rotten food, we should be okay with it going out of business. This holds for software companies that view accessibility as technical debt/#todo items.

Especially web accessibility standards are so tenplatizable and test driven now, there really is no excuse.

Your comparison is flawed, in my opinion.

What you're saying is equivalent to a restaurant owner who doesn't serve meals adequate to allergic people is a jerk and should go out of business.

I disagree from a conceptual/philosophical perspective (broken accessibility is bad delivery, not just occasional mishap/edge case for some small set of customer) and from a practical perspective. It's not an occasional customer, it's a huge chunk of the marketplace. Here are some stats: https://themeisle.com/blog/web-accessibility-statistics/

I don't think software shop owners that are ignorant of or ignoring accessibility are necessarily jerks. Before being informed, they are transgressive to good sense; after being informed, immoral. How they act directly towards someone is what defines whether they are a jerk or not, and that, in my mind, is not really connected to the conversation.