I.e. thanks to using a PDF we can give authors full flexibility on how to lay out their article, which allows folks to be really really creative (as you can see in this issue). The obvious problem with that (apart from countless hours foxtrot_charlie - our DTP/PDF programmer - has to spent on fighting with PDF weirdness) is that reading an A4 PDF isn't great for phones, computers screens, or tables. It's even worse if you're using a screen reader, since getting PDFs in the way we get them and making them screen reader compatible is... complicated, to say the least (that's why it's not yet there). On the flip side, everyone has a PDF reader nowadays, articles look everywhere the same (this wouldn't be true for other formats), and it's also printable almost out of the box.
So, pros and cons. At the end of the day I don't think there's an easy out for us without breaking any of the things which make Paged Out! what folks like about it. The things I want to improve is getting printed versions more accessible, and some day finally getting solid screen reader support. But other than that I do believe the scrolling problem with remain with the zine.
ETA: Actually I also want "readings" of articles to become a thing. From the get go we put the in the author's license (note: not all articles use it, but most do) the ability for folks to agree to have their articles be recorded in an audio form. I think that would be cool for folks who like consuming things like audiobooks or podcasts. And it would save us from scrolling (for the cost of having illustrations described instead of seeing them).
Art is almost always inaccessible to someone because that's part of what constitutes "art". Music is inaccessible to the deaf. Paintings are inaccessible to the blind. Food is inaccessible to those unable to smell.
If the purpose of the thing that you're creating is art, then it is necessarily inaccessible along the dimensions of your artistic freedom. (obviously, intentionally making it inaccessible along other dimensions, such as requiring a verbal test in order to view a painting, is silly, but we're not considering that) That's just what art is. That doesn't mean that you can't strive to make it a bit more accessible (e.g. with readings of content that a screen reader would have a hard time parsing), but merely that you have to acknowledge that (1) there's some parts of your art that certain people will never be able to experience (which is not your fault) and (2) that some things will be economically (in the spiritual sense, e.g. including volunteer time) infeasible to make accessible.
Conversely, if what you're making is meant to be a purely functional resource, then you should probably strive to make it accessible - but the only reason you can do this in the first place is because you've made a value decision to sacrifice aesthetics/art in the name of function.
That's a very long way of saying that I think you're taking a very reasonable position on this.