“Cost is not a good argument [to not do it]” is the actual line taken with the ADA for public accommodations (which includes most private businesses). There is a reasonable accommodation rule as to how an accessibility function may be implemented, but not if, and the rule scales with the resources of the provider.

The result of which is, in the USA, a person in a wheelchair can enter nearly every business, use many public restrooms, and generally participate in life on their own.

Right, but the ADA is not held accountable to the cost. They get their federal budget chunk whether or not Main St, USA can afford to stay in business.

They may not be the best authority on the question of whether cost is a good enough argument.

ADA unfortunately doesn't have the authority to decide what constitutes a good argument or not. That being said, they do have the authority to enforce rules that exist in spite of the excellent arguments against them.

You're shoving the strawman down the slippery slope. That is not an honest/genuine question.

I don't get where the strawman is, the parent comment said:

>Usually the best argument opposing accessibility is that the authors/developers don’t know what they are doing. When they say accessibility is too expensive that’s what they really mean, and it’s not a good argument.

There's no slippery slope either. If lack of accessibility is just a matter of incompetence and not cost, then there's no downside or cost to adding it everywhere. I don't get the point of not acknowledging that there are costs to accessibility. I get that it's not a good justification in most cases, but there's no benefit in denying that it has costs too. It just discredits the rest of the argument imo.