Look. I am not going to talk about anyone else's disability but my own, but of the two dozen or so staff, programmers, designers, support folks, and writers who had something to do with the last code push, literally one of them is not disabled. It is not "theoretical". We are the disabled people you are talking about.
What I wrote up there in the section on visual photosensitive reactions to on-screen design is the cutting edge of what we-as-in-humanity understand about screen photosensitivity and accessible design. Again, I'm not going to discuss anyone's disability but my own, but guess what: I also am susceptable to photosensitive vertigo from some elements of visual design, which is why we know it is a thing in the first place. I am far from being the only one of our regular contributors who is!
Accusing anyone of bad faith and a malicious desire to cause harm is both counterproductive to your goal of getting the problem fixed and bad disability advocacy. Telling someone who has just finished explaining the cutting edge of neurological research about an issue that they are dismissing that issue is ludicrous.
Re: On the point of civility
What I wrote up there in the section on visual photosensitive reactions to on-screen design is the cutting edge of what we-as-in-humanity understand about screen photosensitivity and accessible design. Again, I'm not going to discuss anyone's disability but my own, but guess what: I also am susceptable to photosensitive vertigo from some elements of visual design, which is why we know it is a thing in the first place. I am far from being the only one of our regular contributors who is!
Accusing anyone of bad faith and a malicious desire to cause harm is both counterproductive to your goal of getting the problem fixed and bad disability advocacy. Telling someone who has just finished explaining the cutting edge of neurological research about an issue that they are dismissing that issue is ludicrous.