[jedimastert]

As someone that has (admittedly minor) struggles with reading and visual processing, I would call the accessibility at least absolutely atrocious.

I don't know if I feel more or less betrayed by the fact that the HTML seems to be more or less bespoke and a screen reader would have no problem with the page, but all of these choices feel all the more intentional.

[metagame]

The page was written to render well if you turn reader view on, and the color schemes are all in one line and easy enough to change. The only thing missing from the reader view is the aside, which is silly and in proper contrast on the original page.

However, the contrast is WCAG AA-conformant (except for the links that aren't in a black box, which aren't important links, as I went out of my way to confirm as I wrote the post). The page is actually pretty accessible.

Accessibility is important to me, as many people I've known in my life have been disabled, but so are silly aesthetic choices.

It was intentional, but it also was well-intentioned. That's why it's readable in more or less every web browser, regardless of whether it supports the one line of CSS I'm using, and accessible to screen readers (although I didn't throw in any elements specifically for them, the page is written simply enough that it should work, intentionally).