When I mention accessibility to designers, they are often scathing, mainly (though they don't acknowledge it) because they don't consider it an issue for them. So in other words, they are acting like the site is designed solely for them.
So when you said accessibility is not an issue for you, I was just pointing out that that's not an excuse to ignore it when building a website.
And if your audience includes a small number of people using some ancient version of Netscape or other "dinosaur" browser are you suggesting I should have to cater for them? I don't even support IE6 anymore, let alone any older browsers
I wasn't thinking of people using dead browsers. I agree that they get what they deserve. But a lot of sites use JS to serve up content that is almost or completely inaccessible to blind users with screen readers (for example). The ideal is to establish a way for them to be able to access the content too. Unless the content in that select element (or whatever stands in its place) is accessible with JS off or via assistive technology, it could be said to fail in its duty from a purist point of view. To use some JS-dependant, inaccessible alternative to a select list just for its fancy appearance is retrograde, IMHO.