Accessibility is always at odds with plugins, by virtue of them not being part of core; requiring special knowledge to know about, install/setup, and then maintain. That's something perhaps unavoidable. But further, accessibility can again be diminished by the commercial nature of plugins charging users, especially high fees for low (basic) functionality.

These form developers are doing a great job, offering advanced form features. It's not their fault that we also depend on them for basic form functionality which comes as standard in competitor software. But within this context the word "accessibility" appears weaponized as propaganda; a substitute for substance.. of making software accessible.

I'm all for accessibility, in the broad use of the term, inclusive of people and their context, rather than selective of them; "accessibility" is often wielded on GitHub as a reason to block new features and slow progress, probably because it just seems a sacred cow that will everyone must support, no matter the context. Our basic standards should be higher.