Because of the low effort troll, I think things have gone a bit out of context. I called the judge stupid not because she did not understand the implications of ADA compliance, but that she made no effort to understand those implications and that she minimized it in her ruling. Rather than attempting to learn what she does not understand (such as the judge who learned programming to understand the Google vs Oracle case) her ruling minimized the issue of one being one where someone with disabilities could not use what is essentially a healthcare service (ordering prescriptions online) to one of being convenience. Ordering food online is a convenience for pickup/curbside/delivery is generally a convenience, but when there's a pandemic it becomes critical. Ordering prescriptions online for me is convenient... But the effort to do so in person isn't much more difficult for me. For a blind person or any disabled person it becomes more of an issue.
There is a difference between educating and convincing; you want to learn more about the subject, and are open minded. Someone like the low effort troll already made their decision and aren't really worth the time giving much consideration
. I don't like wasting my time, and going back and forth with someone who isn't open minded can only ever be a waste of time.
Avatars are mostly cosmetic, and don't serve much point to people who are partially or fully blind. If you post the actual text of what is failing, I can tell you if it matters. Chances are it may just be assuming it is part of the content, which is where contrast matters. For something that is just essentially a visual identifier for someone... It doesn't matter much for people with more critical vision problems.
For the newest member widget, again it doesn't matter that much. It just means they want either a unique, or contextual link which wouldn't really apply to a profile link or a link to the member list.