Selfish reasons for building accessible UIs

Moral vs “selfish” motivations and legal pressure

• Several comments reject the idea that accessibility must be justified selfishly; excluding disabled users is framed as equivalent to knowingly shipping bugs for only one group.
• Others say legal risk is now a major driver: ADA expansion, thousands of state-level lawsuits, and the upcoming EU Accessibility Act are pushing companies to care.
• Some argue this is still “artificial”: accessibility remains unprofitable in many business models and is pursued mainly to avoid regulators, not to gain users.

Business incentives, cost, and “compatibility layer” ideas

• Strong disagreement over whether accessibility “pays for itself.”
• One camp: designing with accessibility from the start usually improves UX for everyone, reduces later retrofit costs, and missing ~20% of potential customers plus lawsuit risk is bad business.
• Other camp: even at design time it adds constraints, overhead, and seldom maximizes revenue; complex cases (e.g., data visualizations) clearly add extra work.
• Some propose specialized accessibility software/“compatibility layers” (like Dark Reader, advanced screen readers, AI-based interpretive tools) as more efficient than demanding every site be perfect. Critics respond that this creates “ghetto systems” and still fails for unsupported sites.

Experiences of disabled users and state of the web

• Blind and disabled commenters describe chronic exclusion: enthusiasm in early FLOSS efforts giving way to burnout as accessibility regressed (GNOME3, Wayland, modern web apps).
• Many modern sites are described as effectively unusable with assistive tech, narrowing job opportunities and deepening the digital divide.
• AI-based description tools are considered unreliable and even dangerous due to hallucinations.

Semantic HTML, “div soup,” and modern frontend practices

• Many endorse semantic HTML (tables, buttons, labels, ARIA) as simultaneously improving accessibility, debugging, testing, keyboard use, and tools like Vimium/Shortcat.
• Others stress that apps and documents differ, but still agree that replacing buttons/links with styled divs is harmful.
• Debate over built-in controls: some say modern HTML primitives (date, dialog, popover, etc.) are now good and composable; others cite long-standing flaws (number inputs, select multiple, lack of real combobox) and argue complex apps need custom widgets.
• Tailwind and heavy JS are criticized for creating unreadable “class soup” and opaque “JavaSludge” UIs, undermining both semantics and DevTools usability.

Culture, education, and human nature

• Commenters blame the lack of accessibility education in standard curricula and OSS “scratch your own itch” culture.
• There’s tension between views of humans as naturally empathetic vs. routinely selfish under capitalist incentives.
• A recurring “selfish” argument: everyone ages into disability; accessible UIs are “future you” insurance.