[well_ackshually]

You are lazy for not doing accessibility adjustments, because accessibility isn't for blind users. It's for the deaf ones, the ones with poor eyesight, the ones with mental deficiencies, the ones with motor issues like Parkinson's, the ones browsing your site shitfaced at 4AM, and so on and so on.

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.

[0x3f]

Every moment you spend doing accessibility is a moment you spend not doing other things. You could argue it has a high RoI to do accessibility, fine, but that doesn't make it lazy _not_ to do it. Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.

[esseph]

You just told a bunch of potential and current customers that they're not worth the ROI.

Pretty sure they'll remember that, and they'll talk about it a lot.

[0x3f]

Picking subsets of customers to focus on is a totally standard part of running a startup or company in general, so this is not really news or any kind of threat.

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.

[hparadiz]

This is just admitting that your product is small and unimportant.

[0x3f]

Hardly, I can trivially find Fortune 500 websites without accessibility.

[DANmode]

As if that’s a bad thing.

Lifestyle businesses are king.

Who wants to be important?

I’d rather be happy.

[esseph]

I suspect as the years change and you continue to get older you will likely revisit this idea mentally.

But you do you, boo

[0x3f]

Ok well enjoy your thought-terminating cliches in the meantime

[well_ackshually]

Accessibility is done while you do it. Not as an afterthought.

But if you're having a higher ROI writing absolute crap, feel free, it's not my website.

[0x3f]

You're just expressing a normative view here, it's not very interesting or informationally-dense. You care about accessibility more than I do. That doesn't make not doing it 'crap'.

[48terry]

> Maybe I have even higher RoI/EV stuff to be doing.

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".

[0x3f]

Yeah, thats explicitly what I'm saying so I'm not sure it needs repeating. That has very little to do with it being lazy though, is the point.

We were already implicitly discussing RoI when we were talking about 'legal consequences' above. This is how people decide between alternatives, generally.