It is a patronising sentiment, but adjacent tonal cues suggest GGGP is offering it ironically, thus in ridicule of performative compliance.

On flipside, note that many regulations - in any human domain - are oriented to raise the level of the worst performing, not to support the efforts of the best or to optimise the middle.

Yes very patronising, a terrible attitude really. Which is why I criticise it.

Also I'm disabled myself, although not in a way that requires any adaptation to use a computer. But I of course notice these things a bit more than average; and I get to hear my elderly father's complaints about software that he can't use because of inaccessible design.

Of course a designer should be qualified and notice these things even more… but all they do is move buttons around and disable copy paste so that even fully abled people have a hard time using our software between versions.

I believe that was the commenter's point - that the designers described patronizingly virtue signal about their accessibility priorities, while their other decisions are troublesome.