> Respectfully screw making users rely on AI for accessibility.
Why? It's the right tool for the job.
> Just make the damn page accessible already.
Oh so just modify every website and expect the disabled people to wait while this happens?
This disabled web browser industry doesn't care about disabled people. Their solutions don't work, disabled browsers are expensive because government grants are given to purchase them.
> Why? It's the right tool for the job.
No, it's not. Why should disabled users be forced to indirectly interact with a webpage via a non-deterministic agent, rather than directly interact with one that's specifically designed to accommodate them?
> rather than directly interact with one that's specifically designed to accommodate them?
Because a world where that happens consistently doesn't exist, it hasn't existed for the last 20 years we've been using ARIA tags, and won't ever exist.
Your advice to "avoid aria tags" would make that a self-fulfilling prophecy. The ways to make it happen:
1. A robust set of web primitives that are accessible by default, and
2. A government that will actually enforce laws (which already exist!) requiring websites to be accessible
> Your advice to "avoid aria tags" would make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As mentioned ARIA has had 20 years to succeed before my Hacker News post. ARIA will continue to fail with or without me.
For a user running into broken pages, sure, you have to compose with what you have.
As a developer, however, get your shit fixed! And that fixing doesn't involve any MCP. Don't expect visitors to run AI...
> Don't expect visitors to run AI...
Why not? That's a more reasonable expectation than asking every website to change.