It is not, if you frame it like that. But my parent claimed implicitly that the w3c needs to see the web as a pure presentational layer. I have nothing against graphical layers, but a semantic web should stay priority #1 if you ask me.
Also: A lot of the shiny new web apps developed during the last few years are unusable with screen readers and/or on low end devices. As long as we can have graceful degradation, i have nothing against more graphical aspects.
riiight. because the current solution of listening to a webapp via jaws is perfect. They get all the content, which only appears in the end of animations during that nifty scrolling effect.
Everyone that needs accessibility is already screwed with regular web presentation hacks. And having to add more presentation hacks to get the presentation right only screw them more.
Accepting the web is a presentation, the effort a few sites do to add accessibility to the hacks could be spent adding micro formats to the page content or something, benefiting blinds and people just wanting a easier way to get the content.
There are several solutions to problems. And the current state of accessibility on the web is not a prime example of a good one.
The web isn't just one visual presentation layer, its a multitude of presentation layers for all kind of people and that demands some compromise.