Hacker News Reader

Comment by merlindru | Hacker News Reader

I'm building something that fixes this exact problem[1].

The landing page doesn't advertise it yet, but essentially, I give agents a small set of tools to explore apps' surfaces, and then an API over common macOS functions, especially those related to accessibility.

The agent explores the app, then writes a repeatable workflow for it. Then it can run that workflow through CLI: `invoke chrome pinTab`

Why accessibility? Well, turns out that it's just a good DOM in general. It's structure for apps. Not all apps implement it perfectly, but enough do to make it wildly useful.

[1] https://getinvoke.com - note that the landing page is targeted towards creatives right now and doesn't talk about this use case yet

View on HN

If agents is what it finally takes to get good a11y I'll take it. I'll bitch about it, but I'll take it.

i think this goes both ways too :) agents have been a boon for everyone with disabilities, carpal tunnel, RSI, ADHD, anything

and now the fact that interfaces need to be accessible to agents, not just humans, ironically increases it for humans in return

And lets not forget that not all disabilities are chronic. Many disabilities are situational or temporary. AI is a great assist for a hangover day for example...

Playwright, the end-to-end testing framework for the web, provides a strong incentive to give sites good a11y: Playwright tests are an absolute delight to read, write and maintain on properly accessible sites, when using the accessibility locators. Somewhat less so when using a soup of CSS selector and getByText()-style locators.

One thing I am curious about is a hybrid approach where LLMs work in conjunction with vision models (and probes which can query/manipulate the DOM) to generate Playwright code which wraps browser access to the site in a local, programmable API. Then you'd have agents use that API to access the site rather than going through the vision agents for everything.

Using playwright-cli with Claude code is highly effective for debugging locally deployed web apps with essentially zero setup.

Was looking for this comment. I'd like to see this approach in the comparison...having the LLM build a playwright script and use it. I suspect it would beat time-to-market for the api, and be close-ish in elapsed time per transaction.

Harder to scale if it's doing a lot of them, I suppose.

This is precisely how the Playwright MCP works, which lets something like Claude directly test a website.

https://playwright.dev/docs/getting-started-mcp#accessibilit...

I've mentioned several times and gotten snarky remarks about how rewriting your code so it fits in your head, and in the LLM's context helps the LLM code better, to which people complain about rewriting code just for an LLM, not realizing that the suggestion is to follow better coding principles to let the LLM code better, which has the net benefit of letting humans code better! Well looks like, if you support accessibility in your web apps correctly, Playwright MCP will work correctly for you.

Amazing.

There is also Testing Library, which I’ve mostly seen and used for unit tests (vitest) and component tests (Storybook), that practically forces you into setting things up in an accessible way. The methods for finding elements are along the lines of “find by ARIA role” or “get by label” - in fact, querying the DOM with selectors is afaik either not a part of the library or very difficult to do because their focus is ensuring your app is actually accessible as part of your testing strategy.

Very real risk of this going in reverse: people building inaccessible websites to prevent AI use.

"AI" is a made up hype thing. It's just computers and computer programs. For real!

Those people probably aren't working on anything useful anyways, so its no big deal.

I've found that by far the most useful websites as a programmer are also the ones most resistant to AI. This would be a huge loss for anyone vision impaired

What sorts of sites are you thinking of? To me, “most useful to a programmer” evokes docs and blogs and github issues and forum posts. I suppose some forums might be AI-resistant (login wall), but the others are trivially AI accessible.

GitHub is naturally LLM resistant via its new uptime feature… I’ll show myself out.

Plenty of Linux-y websites use Anubis. Arch Wiki and IIRC some other distros too.

That's less a value judgment, more a necessary evil due to the plethora of bad actors out there. I doubt it will get in the way of a local model used in a reasonable manner.

Most wikis you can mirror locally if you really need to hammer them.

Examples, please.

That’s such an extremely small niche of people it’s not a real risk.

Or human engineers limiting AI-consumable documentation to improve job security!

I mean…I guess. But this is ridiculous - how many layers does our technology need to bash through to update two records on remote systems? I get that value is being added at some point - but just charge some micropayment for transactions. This is just too much.

Ever read Vernor Vinge’s a deepness in the sky? Digital archeologist, coming right up.

as someone who doesnt do web stuff, i found some humor in having no idea what "a11y" was, having to look it up, and finding out it is supposed to be "accessibility".

my quick accessibility tip: introduce what your acronyms, initialisms, and numeronyms stand for at least once.

a11y is pretty pervasive and well understood in the context around what is being discussed. I18n as well, you get to look that one up to because that makes you one of today's lucky 10000 https://xkcd.com/1053/

If you're on macOS and interested in this space, I highly recommend you open up the system-provided Accessibility Inspector.app and play around with apps and browsers. See how the green cells might guide an LLM to only need to read/OCR specific parts of a screen, how much text is already natively available to the accessibility engine, and how this could lead to really effective hybrid systems - not just MCPs, but code generators that can build and run their own scripts to crawl your accessibility hierarchy for your workflow!

I think this is very fertile ground - big labs need to use approaches that can work on multiple platforms and arbitrary workflows, and full-page vision is the lowest common denominator. Platform-specific approaches are a really exciting open space!

That's how I got into this thing in the first place, hah. Golden advice. It's incredibly cool to see what some apps offer. More of them have great accessibility support than you think (or at least than I thought!)

Great idea.

take a peek at https://github.com/willwade/app-automate?tab=readme-ov-file#... - its early and needs some work -but this is the idea behind this.. (my use case is not agents but actual real disabled people..who need tooling to provide better access to the desktop)

Windows has similar APIs and tools, see, e.g.,

https://accessibilityinsights.io/

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winauto/insp...

https://github.com/FlaUI/FlaUInspect

and for WPF applications specifically,

https://github.com/snoopwpf/snoopwpf

According to ChatGPT Accessibility Inspector is a developer tool in Xcode now.

This is a good solution, instead of everyone blowing tokens on repeating the same computer use task, come up with a way to share the workflows. I think you'd need to make sure there aren't workflows shared that extract user information (passwords).

this is protected against at the OS level, provided the applications declare the input correctly as a SecureTextField.

i so far haven't found any application that doesn't.

all you're able to get out, as far as i can tell, is the length of the entered password.

From applications that capture the screen or use accessibility APIs, perhaps, but what about, e.g., Windows applications that capture window messages, e.g.,

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/spy-internals/

Obviously, if you can inject code into a process that receives sensitive data, you're already running in a context where all security bets are off.

But with processes you yourself create, you probably can, even without elevated privileges, unless the application takes measures to prevent injection (akin to game anticheat mechanisms), so it seems worth pointing out that there are simple mechanisms to subvert such "protected" fields that don't require application-specific reverse engineering.

Interesting! I started something - nowhere near as complete as that and quite different but again using accessibility UI elements. The BIG problem I've found is SOOOO much stuff does really poorly having these elements exposed. Here was my approach https://github.com/willwade/app-automate?tab=readme-ov-file#... - What I do here is build UI templates - either using UIAccess OR using a one pass using a vision model.

Now the argument against this on [reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/openclaw/comments/1s1dzxq/comment/o...)

"my experience is the opposite actually. UIA looks uniform on paper but WPF, WinForms, and Win32 all expose different control patterns and you end up writing per-toolkit handlers anyway. Qt only exposes anything if QAccessible was compiled in and the accessibility plugin is loaded at runtime, which on shipped binaries is basically never. Electron is just as opaque on Windows as on macOS because it's the same chromium underneath drawing into a canvas. the real split isn't OS vs OS, it's native toolkit vs everything else."

sorry i had missed this! this is extremely interesting. thank you for sharing. i thought about this approach and came to the same conclusions as the reddit thread you shared. then again, it probably works fine for 80% of cases...

You should call it Braille

shit, why didn't i think of that

i tend to think of invoke as "an API over macOS apps" tho...

doesn't `invoke finder shareAndCopyLink` read very nicely? :P

Isn't that basically what browser base does. I've found the hardest part of browser use to be stealth first then client change management then browser comprehension (which gets better with every new model).

i'm not too familiar with browserbase, but invoke works with any macOS app (or at least the accessible ones), i think browserbase is only for browser usage.

in the context of this blog post, the conclusion looks similar though!

"use the whole web like it's an API"

works much better than

"figure out similar or identical tasks from a clean slate every single time you do them"

Does https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webmcp overlap ?

Not really IMO, webmcp has devs change their apps. invoke just works with existing apps, especially ones that are accessible

invoke rather has overlap with Claude's and Codex' computer-use, except the steps are stored/scripted.

webmcp is bottom-up. computer-use & invoke are top-down

Reply on news.ycombinator.com