It's about priorities. Adding accessibility is a feature, just like syntax coloring or debugging. And the reasonable way to prioritize the features is to look a

It's about priorities. Adding accessibility is a feature, just like syntax coloring or debugging. And the reasonable way to prioritize the features is to look at how much effort would it take to implement a feature (and maintain/support it in the long term!) vs. how many new users will it bring. If you are designing a custom control framework from scratch, supporting accessibility properly is not trivial, and the amount of new users it would bring you pales in comparison with almost any use case-focused feature. So it makes sense that the author would not be willing to implement it. I also don't like the current approach of arbitrarily targeting small vendors and shaming them into putting unpaid time into a feature that will not pay off for them. It surely gives you the sense of power and moral superiority, but it is extremely toxic and demotivating to small vendors. I think, a better alternative for people concerned about accessibility would be to offer free help adding accessibility to the products they are concerned about. I am certain, had you approached the author with a ready-to-use pull request instead of calling them ignorant, they would have thanked you and merged your changes into the code base ASAP.