You can very easily end up in that "minority". It's just an accident or disease away -- and if not, time and old age will get you anyway (presbyopia, motor decline, and so on).
A discussion is impossible when one side assumes the other is arguing in bad faith. You started from the assumption I need sight to navigate and when I pointed out I don't you doubled down on sanctimoniousness.
Again: why should the needs of the few trump the needs of the many?
>You started from the assumption I need sight to navigate
Yes, and it was a legitimate assumption, given that your comment implied as much (speaking of those people as a minority in the third person, saying "who cares" about those, etc).
There certainly wasn't any "I am a person with accessibility issues myself, and I consider open formats for the majority more important than accessible content" implication.
>Again: why should the needs of the few trump the needs of the many?
First, disabled / elderly etc. people being able to have access to content, knowledge, entertainment, isn't just some random small thing we can just toss aside. Nor does it concern some insignificant minority we could ignore with minimal loss.
Second, putting out unaccessible PDF content is 100% certain to be problematic for people with accessibility needs.
Whereas having HTML instead of PDFs (the latter being what the grandfather suggested and you supported) is far from certain to make people "serfs" (which is a loaded metaphor from feudal times) or to be of much significance.
If anything HTML is open source and free, and implementing a browser to read basic HTML (as opposed to full WPAs) is trivial - more trivial than PDF for that matter, and with more FOSS browser engines in existance, from full-on to minimal like Links. So even at the basic factual level the concern is misplaced.
Try a screen reader on the above nightmare and tell me what you hear. For me it's: iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe-iframe... turning it into a png and trying to scrape text doesn't help because there is literally zero predictable structure to the text, is it one, two, three or 8 columns wide? Depends on where in the page you look.
So again, thanks for the outrage, but we don't need people like you who don't understand the first thing about what we go through defending us and shitting on people trying to make the world better.
s/not because it easy/not beucase it's easy/g
s/that ISO want 198/that ISO wants 198/g
Other than that 10/10. As readable as hacker news on my setup.
The only way that can be better if is you wrote it as pure text.
If you follow basic formatting like double new lines after headings and punctuation most screen readers do a better job of giving you the semantic information by breaks and tones than the always broken 'semantic tags'.
Put it another way, would you want to read raw html to make sure that what you thought was a <p> was actually a <pre>? That's what I get whenever I try and use those. Again a solution by people who don't need to eat their dog food.
With tags for accessibility, I hope.