Then again, the magnifykng glass icon for search didn't make sense either until I read the docs but at least back then people made docs and kept the UI stable enough so that it made sense to learn it.
I still remember fondly being good with OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) in a Microsoft Works.
I think we would be better off if we kept the best from both: the predictability and discoverability of the past with the niceness of today.
Why should we have to choose between nice and usable?
It's a nondescript icon made of three horizontal bars, it looks like literally anything that comes in threes. My mom calls it the pancake button and my fourteen year-old nephew used to call it the button with something that looks like a fork but without a handle until he switched to the "meh" button once he became a nihilist (teenagers do that stuff sometimes). A menu with three items is very likely to be among the last things that crosses a non-techie's mind.
At this point it's been used enough that anyone with enough exposure to electronics knows what it does, but it's hardly a better choice than the "File" menu. The point of making something intuitive, as opposed to explicit (i.e. by using a symbol as opposed to spelling out) is kindda missed if you need to "well actually" it and explain why it means whatever it means.
— History of Empire and Colonialism
— History of Religion and Society
— History of Race, Gender, and Power
⋮
So it naturally means "there is more stuff here" to me. YMMV
Indeed, on teams and products of any size there is always a decision to be made about which accessibility requirements will be met and to what degree.
I would make the separate argument that what you need with accessibility requirements is separate testing expirements for each one. You don't need 100 testers to to make sure you have some special accessibility requirements, e.g. you need 15 normal vision testers and 15 impared vision testers.