That's why you still remember to give it an alt tag :P

For us plebes, that would be called "stalking" and we'd be arrested.

"Oh noes!" has nothing to do with lolcats. It was mostly just a sarcastic way to mock the idiot who was trying to claim that using trivial things like alt tags were a huge cost and burden to a website developer.

I was being serious. The fact that you have a 1 second attention span isn't my problem.

I was being neither cute or "1337" in my post.

Awww, poor baby. I'm really going to lose many hours of sleep lamenting your extraordinary burden.

Well yes, it does. Just as coding a "good" program, a "good" OS, etc takes a lot of time. The whole point is that these basic standards that the W3C puts out for accessibility are no more effort than what would be put in if you were just designing the website properly from the beginning. Outside of things like "1.2 Time-based Media: Provide alternatives for time-based media." pretty much everything in that list is just them reiterating good practice conventions for the web that people should have been following for years anyway. The only reason to not follow pretty much anything in that list (with a few exceptions) is basically due to sheer laziness as most of them are trivial to implement.

Following the standard convention of alt tags on images isn't asking to have someone cater to anyone's specific needs or preferences, it's just good practice that any web coder should have been following for years.

Because designing to these standards makes decent web pages for everyone to use not just the disabled? If you don't care about making good websites, then I guess you have no reason to care.

This is rather amusing because the same thing could be said for why for should any business or person spend any extra time, effort and/or money to create a web page that works in Firefox or Opera when they can just take the easy route and avoid the W3C standards and just code for IE. In fact, to follow this logic why should anyone follow any standards at all? All that just does is requires businesses and people to spend extra time, effort and/or money to follow them. Is there anything actually in that list that I posted that is really all that unreasonable to follow other than if you are a completely lazy website coder? Pretty much all of those things are them asking you to follow conventions that any decent website designer/coder should be doing anyway. Pretty much anything in that list is beneficial to everyone regardless of if you have a disability or not.

Actually in many cases just simply coding to the normal W3C standards, which are basically mostly just reiterated in their accessibility standards list, is enough to make it far easier for anyone disabled to use your website.

So basically despite claims of "tons" and "lots" of SNES games not loading you can't even name a single game? That leads to the only natural conclusion was that you were being hyperbolic and just making shit up.

No one was asking you to make a list. Just for you to provide 1 or 2 examples because we are curious. I'm sorry if you get so hostile over polite questions but I think that's your own character flaw.

Oh noes! An alt tag! Such a difficult thing to implement. Not only does this benefit disabled people but it also helps people who still use Lynx or other text based browsers who aren't disabled. The extra time spent on this is a few seconds at most.

Oh noes! You might have to provide a link to a transcript of the media. While this can sometimes be a bit of a tedious process in most cases it's not as many websites have content that averages maybe a few minutes in length.

Oh noes! Using CSS properly! Again, people should be doing it this way anyway and the only loss by having to put in this extra effort is the loss of subpar designs. Again, this doesn't just benefit disabled people.

Oh noes! Text should be of a color that sets it apart from the background! Oh noes the horror of not being able to put grey text on a black background! Again, this is a trivial thing to do and is also beneficial even to those of us who don't have poor vision and don't want to get eyestrain reading your shitty web page.

Oh noes! This means using HTML controls and links! Again, another trivial thing to do.

Oh noes! One might have to put a checkbox or something else that allows people to be able to change or turn off session limits on viewing content. Again, trivial to implement.

Oh noes! One can't design web pages with annoying flashing content! I don't know of any person who would think this is a bad thing.

Oh noes! Designing pages that aren't cluttered and so people can actually easy navigate and use them. This just boils down to actually designing things properly and should be a negligible cost to any decent web page designer. One doesn't have to be disabled to benefit from not having to attempt to use over-cluttered pages.

Oh noes! You actually have to make sure the content you put on your website isn't gibberish or in some sort of weird alignment or other such stupid things that dumbass website makers do because they think it's cool looking.

Oh noes! You actually have to make your website actually work in the way that makes logical sense based on the way it was designed. Oh the horror!!!!

Oh noes! This is as simple as doing things like highlighting fields if a user missed a required input in a form. Trivial and useful for not just disabled people.

Oh noes! Designing your web page to standards and avoiding using deprecated features in your web page. How horrible it would be if more people actually were properly coding their web pages.

Actually it's not. In most cases, designing your websites to accessibility standards actually makes your websites easier to use for everyone and almost always have cleaner designs.

Loss of what? Subpar website designs? I don't really think that's much of a loss of anything.

Such as? The GP was asking for you to list specific games that don't load.