Thanks, Tony!

I agree that WCAG and AT applications need further tweaking to provide solutions to most of these problems. But I'm attempting to provide solutions for the issues as it stands now.

I am not advocating for a "different UI for each special interest group", but rather a single solution for the most number of possible users. But I disagree with the statement anyway - don't we already offer multiple UIs based off the device used to consume it (desktop/phone/tablet)? Should we not include AT users in that, as well?

My overall goal is to show the quickest way to provide the most accessible content possible. That means I advise devs to use certain practices. Again, I'm not saying advocating for better browser rendering, specs, standards, and AT consumption aren't worthwhile efforts - they absolutely are.

I don't accept the premise that devs don't have "time, knowledge, funding, directive, skill, awareness, or interest in accessible development". Some of those may be true (especially funding and directive), but if they don't know it, that's either (or both) an indictment on them and those that taught them. They should know how to develop accessible content. How quickly are devs to dig into (and master) the latest UI framework or a new programming language? They are able to learn, but they don't. Accessibility isn't sexy, but it's necessary.

Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. I may not agree with your conclusions, but at least you read the article and provided sincere feedback. That's more than I can say for others.

All the best!