> It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functiona

> It's not reasonable to require a second, separate app to cater to people with low vision/low dexterity, and chances are it's not going to have equal functionality Your first half of that sentence is debatable in absolute terms but in practice almost always right due to the second half. It can be reasonable to have an alternative version of something — for example, an audio or braille version of a printed document, or a ramp alternative to stairs – but the really hard part is actually keeping them in parity. If something is seen as a compliance obligation, I’d be shocked if that actually happened versus resources being allocated mostly to the extent that they’re cheaper than legal fees.