I think this is an interesting topic.
In my opinion, it raises the legitimate question of whether all cloaking is evil (in the arbitrary eyes of Google), or whether there are certain circumstances where cloaking can be justified.
Unfortunately, I also believe it's a purely academic question, given that our findings and opinions will ultimately matter very little - if at all. Even the most compelling rationale for cloaking will probably have little effect in changing Google's policies.
However, for the sake of the discussion I think it's worth pursuing the question:
Is all cloaking evil?
So, I would suggest that there's probably a simple litmus test to apply. There may be others, but this is the one that comes first to my mind. And like so many things in life, it comes down to motivation.
Is the cloaking intended to produce an advantageous result in the SERPs?
- If the answer is yes, then I think the example fails the test and should be considered evil.
- If the answer is no, then we might consider it as an example of legitimate cloaking.
So, what is the purpose for wanting to hide these accessibility links from the search engines? Does it benefit the users in some way?