I don't read it as denigrating hobbyists. Hobbies are great.
I think the point is that, if you're professionally developing software that interfaces with humans, accessibility is part of your job.
I think the point is that, if you're professionally developing software that interfaces with humans, accessibility is part of your job.
That doesn't make them a hobbyist. It makes them bad at their job.
If you equate people who are bad at their jobs with hobbyists, it implies that hobbyists are bad at what they do which is simply untrue. Many hobbyists are very very good at what they do and they are usually free from the constraints that come with a job (e.g., doing what your manager thinks is important rather than what you think is important).
i'm ok with pushing the importance of accessibility for "websites intended for the general public", but there are a very large number of web projects out there with a very targeted audience that simply do not have the same accessibility needs as a large retail or informational or government website. Internal webapps for known users are what a lot of us are working on, and accessibility is often not much of a concern.
I see it as distinguishing between endeavors where being good is a requirement and those that are not. Of course there are many highly talented and skilled hobbyists but it’s not a requirement. It’s not even a requirement to want to get good at a hobby, though most probably do have some level of attainment in mind.
Correct. The point is that a hobbyist doesn't have to care about it. When I write software for personal use (read: as a hobbyist), I don't worry about having good accessibility labels, or testing for localization support. When it's a hobby, I write the software I want to use.
When I write software professionally, I need to make sure it is accessible. Otherwise I have failed.