"This article presents a wide variety of mistakes, misconceptions, over-indulgences, intricacies, and generally silly aspects of modern accessibility.”

So True!

Unfortunately many of those mistakes, misconceptions and over-indulgencies are those of the author and not of the examples he cites.
This article epitomizes the all too common and unfortunate trend of the web, where people take on a cause (i.e. CSS or Accessibility) and immediately start to enhance and elevate it to the level of Religious Dogma hosted in their personal temple (blog) calling down perfidy on the ‘infidel’ (those using tables).

Opinions and personal style are presented as fact, nay, as Gospel and detractors as heretics, fools and apostates

In the aforementioned article, there is often poorly written on absent reasoning for some of the commandments given -not that there is a need- We are to act on Faith and the instruction of the self appointed Demi-Gods, not on logic or common sense :)

examples:

Invisible link focus- (turning it off) dont do it
Reality:It’s fine to ‘take away an apple’ - if you can offer them a peach in return!

Sure, peaches are furry - but which one among us hastnt eaten something with hair on it?

example 2
Accesskeys and tabindex

Don’t use them.
(informed response: ‘oh please’)
Us poor mortals cant be entrusted with the power!!

Example 3
Accessibility options are for sissies
-while I agree some ‘font sizing’ options on websites are not themselves always as accesible as they should be , the fact remains that defaulting your page ‘at the size that will fit all’ is just pure bullshit. His arguments thereto are the most inane rantings you are often to find outside of Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit!

Granted, the article is not all bad. There are noteworthy gems therein. But, its really worthless since to knowledgable, it adds nothing new (except for wry humor at the rants) but to the neophyte, those in their formative CSS years, it provides a poisonous clouding of the intellect.

Article Rating: D/Thumbs down(or anywhere you like, Nathan!)

Well, the title of the article is “Web Accessibility Gone Wild”, so I think the author agrees to some degree things have gotten out of hand with some people when it comes to the pursuit of accessibility.

I think maybe you have it a little backwards, or, more likely - i didnt get my point across very well.
the AUTHOR in describing/claiming accessibility attempts were awry, was HIMSELF of the beaten track, with some of his examples being flat out rubbish and inflamed opinion.

That the article had some GOOD points was somewhat spoiled by some of his rubbish - as a result, its hard to recommend it.

An expert wouldn’t need it, and a young noob would receive some good/some stupid info and they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference!