I don’t know, I got 140 upvotes on a nitpick so I think others agree with me it’s hard to read.
replyDidn't say it wasn't. I said invoking an accessibility standard when it comes to a guy's personal website is laughable because the way it was said implied he was compelled to change his site because some bureaucratic busybodies somewhere said he should. Unless you are a business or a government, most people aren't overly concerned about accessibility, nor should they be - especially if it comes about only through guilt tripping or insinuated threats.
replyI don’t think I’ve insinuated any threats. WCAG are guidelines. It’s a great idea to follow them if you want your content to be consumed, but as you say most jurisdictions would only mandate accessibility for certain actors, not for everyone. Me, I have no idea what jurisdiction the OP is in, or who he/she is, or whether WCAG would be a compliance issue to them. I just used that term as a clue/hint that there are frameworks that can help guide web authors towards good practices. Like how WCAG 2.2 specifies a minimum contrast level. Nobody knows all of this stuff by default, we all have to learn it. Gotta assume good intentions and just point them towards the tools available.
replyMany here at HN find that site hard to read, not just the original commenter.
reply