I find the "legal liability" claim hilarious... I do better than 95% of the web: as I said I HAVE some screen reader directives (just did not test it), and labels to make the app more accessible.
Is this to be read that disabled people and their needs, or more directly from the replied-to comment, "doing the right thing", are not a focus of yours, flossly?
You must have six million dollars laying around. Because that's the penalty Target paid for not having an accessible web site.
That wasn't even a regulatory penalty, but a class action by the National Federation of the blind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_the_Bli...
Accessibility isn't a checklist to cover your ass for a percentage of the population: it's for everyone. It literally makes your website less shit. You slapping an aria-label doesn't fix things.
I mean, to readers of these comments, I think it's right there for you: 0x3f will take "higher ROI" over "accommodate and support disabled people".
We were already implicitly discussing RoI when we were talking about 'legal consequences' above. This is how people decide between alternatives, generally.
Pretty sure they'll remember that, and they'll talk about it a lot.
You might as well tell me the suburban moms are not going to buy my developer tool because I've personally slighted them with the branding. Why would I care? I made my decisions knowing this.
In fact ditching low RoI customers is incredibly common and good startup advice.
But you do you, boo
But if you're having a higher ROI writing absolute crap, feel free, it's not my website.