[zamadatix]

The button can't both be an argument that the developer could have easily implemented accessibility and an argument that a it'd be a lot more work to implement accessibility in the same comment chain though.

Unless we're now talking about how to implement buttons for the sake of talking about buttons instead of the accessibility of this project in which case I don't think that's what the PR comment was intended to discuss, rather a PR to fix the actual accessibility issues the project was originally called out for.

I.e. if you think the scope of the should be bigger to address accessibility that doesn't make 2) invalid it just means you think it should be a larger PR.

[Vinnl]

> The button can't both be an argument that the developer could have easily implemented accessibility and an argument that a it'd be a lot more work to implement accessibility in the same comment chain though.

Sure it can: it'd have been zero extra work if it had been done while writing the code in the first place, but having to do it afterwards means you'd practically have to rewrite the entire thing.

That said, I wouldn't argue that the developer could easily have implemented it, otherwise I'm sure they'd have done so. I'm only lamenting the fact that it wasn't, and that it now can't be solved with a single small PR.