This is what I do. I primarily use Linux because it has the most flexibility with typeface and scaling, but it’s still not perfect (e.g. all electron apps) and it’s definitely bespoke and hard to reproduce.
I routinely open tickets with software vendors and open source projects asking for things that ought to be low-hanging fruit and I’m either blown off or directed to tools that don’t make sense for me (usually magnifier or text-to-speech). The appetite for fixing issues that limit my access to software is essentially null.
I’ve dealt with these problems for two decades and I really believe that there is very little economic incentive to make software accessible. Unless substantially more people become vision impaired in the future, that’s how it will stay. I am pretty certain that only way software companies will really take the vision impaired into account is if they are forced to.
If they're low hanging fruit why not implement them yourself or put up a bug bounty?
If even a fraction of those with limited vision did this the problem would be solved.
And if its not, then it's probably not worth making it accessible (e.g. if it would cost £10k to make some obscure game accessible that would probably only have a half dozen vision impaired users that's just not worth it, the time of the developers is worth more than the hypothetical users enjoyment of the game).
