Maybe you see something I do not. I don't see how the comment was talking down to you, at least not with any tone that didn't precede it. Let's just keep the wh

Maybe you see something I do not. I don't see how the comment was talking down to you, at least not with any tone that didn't precede it. Let's just keep the whole conversation civil. I'll respond here to your comment from earlier. While I'd agree that 1) HN standard could be illegible to some people, that 2) WCAG 2 AA compliance would increase legibility for those people. I'd actually argue that WCAG 2 AA would be disabling for the visually unimpaired and for those with poorer memory. While letters words and sentences would be legible for the visually unimpaired under WCAG 2 AA, it does impact legibility of the CONTEXT. I doubt that WCAG 2 AA considers this aspect. When I see less on the screen, the more I need to spend on memory because I cannot just scan for the details. This is impairing. Context change is impairing. When menus on some UIs do a fullscreen context switch, I respond slower, I am more disoriented. Context switching is hard. HN's format is less disabling to me, and possibly to a lot of people for whom context changes (caused by scrolling seeing less at a time) cause impairment. I am familiar with a lot of the issues of disability and able-ism, and work with individuals with intellectual disabilities and sensory sensitivities regularly. Society definitely can make the world less disabling for the impaired by taking steps to improve accessibility. However real world constraints can be so demanding that overcoming them could actually cause greater harm in certain cases, or when taken to a logical extreme.