Hmmm... It seems we are finding a crossroads of issues here.

One issue which needs to be acknowledged in this debate/discussion is
the "digital divide". (The divide between those who can afford the
technology and those who cannot.) Every day designers make decisions to
design for particular browser versions and higher. The standard taught in
most college courses regarding web design is design for the most current
browser on the market 2 years ago. This means that anyone with an older
system is out of luck pretty quickly.

This relates not only to people with disabilities, but to anyone who cannot
afford to upgrade their operating system and increase their RAM, so that
they can get the "free" browser upgrade. So if you can't afford to upgrade,
the logical step is to look for public access that is not in a your own
home (obviously problematic for home-bound folks). Currently we look to our
public libraries. Fortunately they are keeping up with most of the latest
technologies, but are not well enough equipped for all disabilites.

Web Designers cannot solve this Digital Divide problem. This is a larger
issue that seems to get lip service, but deserves much wider public debate
(in Congress, the media, schools, and our homes). Perhaps folks here are
interested in pushing this issue as well as issues that seem particular to
accessiblility?

Another issue is accessible and pleasing design for all, which is often
called Universal Design. This is doable, while at times it poses quite a
terrific puzzle for designers who really must produce something that works
for everyone in order to keep their jobs. I have found that my own
commitment to Universal Design sometimes puts me in the center of difficult
conversations with my employer and our clients. Many times money and
profitabilty are the deciding factors on how to proceed. Many clients are
learning to include accessibility standards (which are still unclear or not
functional) in this decision equation. To "just design for everyone" is not
a simple task, but YES, it is doable.

Brief Tangent: In fact, sometimes web design clients decide that the target
audience is very specific and NOT everyone at all. I believe this will
eventually lead into broader debates about what the internet really is and
whether or not its use should be regulated. (Will we decide that it is a
free-wheeling place for multi-level communication or a sanctuary of public
communication that must meet specific standards or something else entirely?)

Another Tangent: While some will argue that the "pleasing" or appeal aspect
of web design is a lesser value than content, most understand that
presentation is half of the story and content is the other half. Drop
either aspect and the thing just doesn't come across as well to folks. Even
with a text only website, they can't just be words, they must be well
written.

Let the flaming begin!