> No it’s not the same, have you ever used a wheelchair or known a user? Many many adaptions have to be made to basically every building for that wheelchair to

> No it’s not the same, have you ever used a wheelchair or known a user? Many many adaptions have to be made to basically every building for that wheelchair to be functional. Curb cuts on sidewalks, buttons on doors, elevators everywhere. Simply “getting into a wheelchair” isn’t enough to make accessibility work, you need to fundamentally change the infrastructure. That's my point: websites don't need any adaptations to work with wheelchairs (with "wheelchairs" being accessibility extensions/settings in this analogy). If you bring your own wheelchair, it will work with every website. That's not true in the real world, so having laws for it makes sense. > Don’t put the disabled in the position where the website itself takes extra steps just to be usable for them, old 90 year old grandma Betty with failing vision is never going to figure such things out and saying “lol just figure it out” isn’t good enough. I'm not sure how to respond to this. First of all, you don't need a custom an extension per-website. You can install one extension, and it will work the same for all websites. You might not even need to install an extension, because Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, and even Gnome and KDE have tons of accessibility features built-in. Furthermore, there are some tech-savvy grandmas out there. If Betty isn't tech-savvy, then her grandchild should've set her PC up for her. If she has failing vision, she's not going to be able to use the computer/phone at all unless someone enabled a magnifier/voice assistant/increased the font size. > Those extensions that repaint websites with a new color palette are ugly as crap and buggy, and anybody with the attitude their website doesn’t need to follow WCAG by default definitely hasn’t actually checked such extensions actually work. You're making a lot of assumptions here. "ugly" is personal taste, although I do think most designers would consider enormous fonts to be "ugly as crap", but it's what's required for people with visual impairments. Also, just because a website isn't adhering to WCAG recommendations doesn't mean they didn't test it with accessibility extensions. Maybe there aren't enough resources to build a WCAG-compliant design, but a designer on the team can make a few minor tweaks so that they work well with popular accessibility extensions/features. > What you’re doing is less building a wheelchair ramp and more leaving a pile of lumber next to some stairs, building the wheelchair ramp would mean having an accessible theme be the default and maybe the OPs theme be an alternate. I don't think that's an accurate analogy. Like I said, a browser extension doesn't need to be customized per-website to be work. A person with disabilities is going to enable accessibility features on their device (or someone else will do it for them). Depending on the situation, that might include a browser extension as well. ...but again, I don't know much about accessibility issues. However, this response hasn't convinced me that it's unreasonable for web devs/publishers to expect users with disabilities to bring their own extensions/accessibility features.