Yes, that is the specific, in-context meaning - but many people, even software developers, don't know that.
To them, "accessible" has its conventional or conversational definition: able to be accessed, or available. They would view the title as describing software that you can install or run on any operating system, which QT seems to supply.
> but many people, even software developers, don't know that
I find it hard to believe that software developers would not be aware of the term "accessibility" as meaning features facilitating use by handicapped users.
Quick poll of my coworkers (we do industrial automation, there's next to zero thought or money given for accessibility except the awareness that start and stop buttons, typically red and green, must also be labeled in case users are red/green colorblind:
- Me: On HN enough to know what it means.
- Senior EE in PLC programming: No clue.
- Senior dev, mostly self-taught: Means it can be accessed? Easy to use, or intuitive?
- College Intern: It means it's able to be used by people with disabilities.
(Senior dev: Oh yeah! I read an article on that a while ago.)
So our shop was 2/4 on it. Granted, we're a little atypical, but as a lot of programs are written with no thought to accessibility, there are a lot of devs who don't think about accessibility.
I suspect we'd have similar results for 'localization'. They'd probably guess 'internationalization' from context.
To them, "accessible" has its conventional or conversational definition: able to be accessed, or available. They would view the title as describing software that you can install or run on any operating system, which QT seems to supply.