Napoleon supposedly had a habit of leaving letters unopened for three weeks.
His thinking was simple. Many problems will solve themselves if you don't touch them right away, others get handled by someone else and some turn out not to matter altogether.
So that's the Napoleon Technique. Supposedly, you get more done by reacting less. Makes sense and it's quite useful sometimes.
I just think it's too dangerous for accessibility.
It's all too easy to mislabel accessibility as "minor" or "not urgent."
Just imagine.
A missing label on a form field seems like a minor inconvenience. If a modal traps focus, it's not urgent, people use a mouse. If there's an error that a screen reader won't announce, you think there's not that many who use one, so it's a non-issue. You'll fix these later if they're still an issue by the time you get to them.
The language sounds practical. Those words in any other context sound like prioritisation. It sounds like you're making trade-offs.
But for the people blocked by these issues, the problem won't sort itself out. They still can't use your forms, close that modal or know why something failed.
These accessibility bugs age badly. The problem is they get wrapped in more and more code. As they become part of the system, they'll spread into other flows. And, what's worse, they teach the team that exclusion is acceptable as long as it doesn't affect enough people at once.
The Napoleon Technique works only when delay reduces work without increasing harm. Accessibility delays often do the opposite.
If an accessibility issue blocks a task, breaks navigation, hides information or stops someone from completing a core flow, don't put it in the "later" pile.
Until history remembers you as one of its greatest military commanders, maybe don't borrow this move from Napoleon. I'm sure he didn't get to be Napoleon by ignoring things and hoping they sort themselves out.