[use-cases] "content provided to a limited group of users only" may be problematic for a few reasons

[cookiecrook]

5.10.1 Example 10.1 - content provided to a limited group of users only

If I understand correctly, this example is trying to carve out an exception for content accessibility where it would needless to do the work, effectively needless contextual burden, or accessibility busywork. While I acknowledge that general scenario is real, I think there are a few problems with the scenario proposed.

1. Mandatory disclosure and request for accommodation. This may or many not be legal in some jurisdictions due to applicable employment or education law. Even if legal in all areas, it forces a self-disclosure that may be problematic or stigmatic for some, unless there is a way to track accommodation requests anonymously.

2. Accommodation request turnaround is rarely expedient, especially when it's a new request. Consider the comment that used to be common, ~"We'll build. wheelchair ramp when a customer needs one..." By then, it's already too late, even if you could expedite the ramp install. Software retrofitting often takes even longer.

3. Many assistive features act as benefits to learning styles, even if they are not strictly a "need." Captions are obviously used by more than the Deaf and hard of hearing communities, so limiting their usage to "request if needed" is problematic for some neurodiverse learning styles, participants for whom local language is a second language, etc.

Again, I agree that accessibly accommodations should not be required in contexts where they really aren't being used, but I don't think the example captures that in a defensible way.

Thanks for considering.