A thought/question about mobility, audience and inclusiveness in theatre

I have been musing for some time now but more and more of late about immersive theatre, conceptual staging and radical intimacy on US stages. Three topics close to my artistic heart, but also as Sam Gold's staging of Annie Baker's version of UNCLE VANYA at Soho Rep requires its limited audience to sit inside its A frame house and Jim McDonald's re-staging of the UK play by Mike Bartlett COCK thrillingly seats its audience cockfight-style on bare bleachers in a tight circle, and other pieces in and around town require either travelling show/promenade performance and/or up close and in one room actor to audience encounters, I return again and again to who is the audience.

Now, why would I even posit such a question? Well, it occurs to me that often when artists make work and dream up beautiful conceptual ideas such as some of the above for staging and re-imagining work, assumptions are made about the audience. Very clear assumptions about specific bodies in space. Often the assumption is, well, that the bodies are quite "able." In other words, when the big gorgeous ideas occur about audience and immersion, does the idea ever occur that there will be audience members in wheelchairs? Or that need to use canes? Or that some may be blind or deaf? Does "challenged mobility/ability" enter the picture? In effect, unless the piece being made is ABOUT and FOR - therefore, targetted to - an audience with mobility/ability challenges, are they even thought of as being PART of the audience??  

I don't wish to rain on some carefully rendered, thrilling theatrical work on our stages or being dreamt up right now, but I think the question need be asked - who is the audience? who do we imagine is part of our crowd and why?

and is it simply too easy to assume, perhaps out of social conditioning, that most of the audience will be able to trek the woods, follow the sprites, run up and down stairs (a la Punchdrunk's sublimely rendered Sleep No More), and/or sit cross legged on a carpet floor in a fairly confined space for 2 hours and half, etc., to witness/be part of the experience?

is it, in effect, too much of a bother to consider how to dream big conceptual, specific theatrical ideas and put them into remarkably into action and ALSO still think about EVERYONE that might show up, or is exclusion a natural part of the audience equation?

is it easier to say: well, this is for some people and some people only and those who want to see it/be part of it/and are willing to pay a ticket are just gonna be screwed over because in the planning stages, allowances were not made necessarily about how someone or two or three or more may be welcomed into the experience?