I've thought about this problem a lot, and come down to the conclusion that that means that this is basically art, as opposed to pure information/an educational

I've thought about this problem a lot, and come down to the conclusion that that means that this is basically art, as opposed to pure information/an educational resource. Art is almost always inaccessible to someone because that's part of what constitutes "art". Music is inaccessible to the deaf. Paintings are inaccessible to the blind. Food is inaccessible to those unable to smell. If the purpose of the thing that you're creating is art, then it is necessarily inaccessible along the dimensions of your artistic freedom. (obviously, intentionally making it inaccessible along other dimensions, such as requiring a verbal test in order to view a painting, is silly, but we're not considering that) That's just what art is. That doesn't mean that you can't strive to make it a bit more accessible (e.g. with readings of content that a screen reader would have a hard time parsing), but merely that you have to acknowledge that (1) there's some parts of your art that certain people will never be able to experience (which is not your fault) and (2) that some things will be economically (in the spiritual sense, e.g. including volunteer time) infeasible to make accessible. Conversely, if what you're making is meant to be a purely functional resource, then you should probably strive to make it accessible - but the only reason you can do this in the first place is because you've made a value decision to sacrifice aesthetics/art in the name of function. That's a very long way of saying that I think you're taking a very reasonable position on this.