> For example, they have only considered how something looks, not how it works(for both people using accessibility tech and those who don't).
When Sun or Google created their own, non-native toolkits designed to run on Mac OS/iOS, they were fully aware of what doesn't work. However, they balanced that con against the pros of the ability to write cross-platform code once (ground floor engineers), and on strategic level, they wanted to commoditize Mac OS/iOS into a dumb pipe (one of many other dump pipes to deliver code/content to), rather than a platform with inherent value - they consciously considered this to be more important than users' griping at the weird scroll-speed curves. One can create a shim for native widgets like QT does, but you'll be at the platform owners mercy when it comes to release cadence.
It's good business practice to commoditize your complement - seen in that light, the decisions are far from "not smart". Not great for some users, for sure, but they come from deliberate decision-making over control.
When Sun or Google created their own, non-native toolkits designed to run on Mac OS/iOS, they were fully aware of what doesn't work. However, they balanced that con against the pros of the ability to write cross-platform code once (ground floor engineers), and on strategic level, they wanted to commoditize Mac OS/iOS into a dumb pipe (one of many other dump pipes to deliver code/content to), rather than a platform with inherent value - they consciously considered this to be more important than users' griping at the weird scroll-speed curves. One can create a shim for native widgets like QT does, but you'll be at the platform owners mercy when it comes to release cadence.
It's good business practice to commoditize your complement - seen in that light, the decisions are far from "not smart". Not great for some users, for sure, but they come from deliberate decision-making over control.