I don’t think you are a minority in web development, but if you are shipping to a wide user base on the open web, you are definitely on the wrong, and you may b

I don’t think you are a minority in web development, but if you are shipping to a wide user base on the open web, you are definitely on the wrong, and you may be doing something illegal. As far as web development goes, accessibility is actually something you must screw up, rather then something you have to build up. In most cases what you do is accessible by default (as is talked about in this article) and you have to do something weird to brake it. What you build by not thinking about accessibility might not have the best usability for assistive technology, but it should at least work. That said, throughout my 10+ years as a web developer, I have consistently been reminded about accessibility. It is all over the literature, if you go to a random page on MDN there is probably a bullet point about accessibility implications. As a student, accessibility was at the forefront. In fact, as an expert front end developer, it is my responsibility to make sure what I build is accessible. In fact, project managers often don’t know this, and I have to explain to them. A good project manager would know to take an expert advice. > you could take this whole argument, find+replace "accessibility" with "security" and you would have a much more compelling argument imo. Given time constraints, code should prioritize security over accessibility basically always. I’m sorry, but this mentality demonstrates a massive disrespect for a portion of your user base (given you are targeting a general audience; as opposed to internal tools). If your work can’t be used by somebody with a disability (or because their touchpad stopped working), you are not only being rather rude, but you may be braking the law. Everybody deserves the possibility to use your work equally.