That whole way of thinking isn't appropriate. 5% is an insane number of people, when you are that large these things are no longer optional. The fact that we have an effective tech duopoly is not important at all. If the market were split between 20 5% players they too would have to ensure that their devices are accessible to all comers. The fact that 95% is split between two parties does nothing to change the responsibilities of a 5% player.
>That whole way of thinking isn't appropriate. 5% is an insane number of people, when you are that large these things are no longer optional.
And hardware compatibility issues are? The fact that orders of magnitude more people don't use Linux at all, disabled or not, because of lacking features or usability is optional?
If 5% of people is an insane number of people, surely usability for them all is more important than for a fraction of that? And again, this is not a product sold by a corporation. Leave features behind and adoption goes down, then you get no accessibility features at all. If you want more accessibility features, you want more developers. For that you want more usage.
Hardware compatibility issues are just a distraction in this discussion. You can do both. If all of the hardware compatibility issues would be resolved there would be some other excuse.
The entirety of this discussion has been about what should be prioritised in order to increase Linux adoption. You cannot do everything together all at once, especially with the limited resources of open source.
Since you're such a noble white knight, why don't you code up those accessibility features you think are the most important missing part ? I'll wait.
