Comment by askew
Is that extra development cheaper than the risk of a lawsuit or loss of reputation? Not forgetting the ~20% of potential customers you might be missing out on…
> not least that you aren't imposing a heavy tax on everyone else for a really small customer base.
Ah. Seeing your disabled customers as a burden. One day you might encounter barriers when it comes to computing.
>Is that extra development cheaper than the risk of a lawsuit
It probably isn't cheaper, no. The base risk of a lawsuit in this domain seems very low for all but the largest of websites; the largest of websites generally have large enough user pools that investing in out of the box accessibility makes sense anyway. In fact I would wager Facebook makes more advertising money off of its median blind user than its median fully-sighted user, simply because that's a very easy demographic to target ads to.
I'm willing to change my mind on this if you can provide evidence if even, say, 1% of all inaccessible websites on the Internet have been sued on these grounds.
>Seeing your disabled customers as a burden
Disabled potential customers, for one. Disabled people aren't dumb, and they don't pay for things they can't actually use. I'm surprised you assume they would.
But, and and this may come as a surprise, I genuinely think the compatibility layer approach is the much better option here. There are plenty of reasons to think so, which I outlined in the original post. Your slander is not welcome or acceptable just because you disagree with me.