Fine then don't care if your website is unusable by a disabled person on a public computer. I don't control your life. 95 year old cobol hacker Mabel still can't install the extensions that are supposed to fix the problem you're talking about because a careless library sysadmin forgot to whitelist them or was worried about malware hijacks.
Accessible design is beautiful design because function is the essence of beauty though. Any website that excludes part of the public is hideous. Websites that need their disabled users to execute sketchy arbitrary code to fix a UI that is physically hard to use are badly designed. "lol just run an extension" is something that sounds very simple but is FAR more complicated if you care about things like security and compatibility and aesthetics. Disabled users should get the same experience using your website, the same aesthetics, and the same security as your other users.
I don't accept rationalisation of inaccessible design in actual developer tooling or websites with a substantial amount of users. The damage caused to the disabled quickly exceeds the convenience afforded to developers once you're hitting user counts in the thousands.
I think that other commenter baited you into a stupid emotional/culture war internet thing. That wasn't me, and I don't think that your rhetoric in this comment is called for.
I have never said "lol just run an extension". That's completely dismissing/ignoring my argument, and kind of disrespectful. It doesn't seem like you're actually trying to have a productive argument, especially since you're calling your own argument irrational:
> I don't accept rationalisation of inaccessible design in actual developer tooling or websites with a substantial amount of users ...
So if you're just trying to get into an internet slap fight with somebody, go do it with that other guy.
Accessible design is beautiful design because function is the essence of beauty though. Any website that excludes part of the public is hideous. Websites that need their disabled users to execute sketchy arbitrary code to fix a UI that is physically hard to use are badly designed. "lol just run an extension" is something that sounds very simple but is FAR more complicated if you care about things like security and compatibility and aesthetics. Disabled users should get the same experience using your website, the same aesthetics, and the same security as your other users.
I don't accept rationalisation of inaccessible design in actual developer tooling or websites with a substantial amount of users. The damage caused to the disabled quickly exceeds the convenience afforded to developers once you're hitting user counts in the thousands.