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.
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?
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.
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
As mentioned ARIA has had 20 years to succeed before my Hacker News post. ARIA will continue to fail with or without me.
ARIA attributes are only one of the tools to help with web page accessibility and are somewhat last resort when you can't do what you aim to do with bare HTML.
The first tool is to not break stuff in the first place.
The solution to "accessibility is not ideal across the world" is certainly not "Outright avoid tagging stuff for accessibility anyway", as if using ARIA attributes were somewhat harmful. It's not, unless you misuse them, and no, the spec isn't unworkable, and you also don't have to use it all.
The response to "software is broken" is not "software has had 50+ years to be bug free, let's put the burden on the users to deal with it since obviously developers can't do bug free".
I feel that claiming the web now consistently complies with ARIA is an incredibly bold claim, and the burden of proof is on you but you can test the top 50 websites yourself if you genuinely believe that.
> are somewhat last resort when you can't do what you aim to do with bare HTML
This thinking was popular 20 years ago when ARIA was created. Application-like behaviour, which nearly always means JS, is the majority of websites.
> ARIA attributes were somewhat harmful
Wasted engineering effort on minimally effective outcomes is harmful.
> "software has had 50+ years to be bug free, let's put the burden on the users to deal with it since obviously developers can't do bug free".
Others not following your religion is not a defect.
... that I didn't make
> This thinking was popular 20 years ago when ARIA was created. Application-like behaviour, which nearly always means JS, is the majority of websites.
That's besides the point, your JS code still generates HTML. Writing applications in JS doesn't change anything about the topic.
What I'm saying is that you mostly don't need to use aria attributes with a good HTML structure, generated from JS or not. Use them sparingly when you can do it in pure HTML (again, generated or not).
> Others not following your religion is not a defect.
That's not an answer to the stuff you quoted and there's no religion here.
You have a point about web accessibility lacking but we'll have to disagree about "let's just give up good practice since it's not been perfect despite all these years". Actually, you are not claiming "not perfect", you are claiming "not present", but you're wrong on this as other commenters told you.
> ... that I didn't make
Ok so you agree that the web has not and is unlikely to be ARIA compliant?
But then persist in supporting ARIA despite knowing that goal isn’t and never will be achievable?
That seems exactly like religion.
> you're wrong on this as other commenters told you
As does this. Nobody has refuted the point in the original post that ARIA is a boil the ocean strategy, in face you have just conceded it. What makes you think other commenters disagreeing would change that?
There are imperfections in any piece of furniture and yet we are still building furniture? How religious!
You sound like this to me.
There's a whole world between "accessible HTML is never achieved anywhere" and "accessible HTML is fully achieved everywhere". As other commenters already told you, we are actually mostly there, there's no complete failure here. Sure, shit's not perfect (far from it, sadly...) but I feel like you are throwing the baby with the bath water.
I'm not willing to increase my electricity bill or spend tokens to make up for your unwillingness to use widely accepted - and mandated by law in many cases! - solutions. I'll just pass and probably others will do as well.
I'll stop here, this is not productive, none of us will likely move from where we stand. Let's just say that you are apparently alone in your position here in this discussion and you have so far failed to convince us. Call that position in which everyone here is except you "religion" all you want. I'll even snarkily risk a tu quoque by emphasizing that AI is no magic dust.
Good day.
Because, asides from users interacting with less programs than they do websites it’s not possible for a user to systematically fix all the programs they interact with. You are proposing an 0(n) solution instead of an 0(1) solution.
That should be incredibly obvious before this discussion even started, and even more obvious after reading this far in the thread. You’re replying but you’re not paying attention to what you’re reading. I’m not going to bother continue reading or interacting with you any further.
As a developer, however, get your shit fixed! And that fixing doesn't involve any MCP. Don't expect visitors to run AI...
Why not? That's a more reasonable expectation than asking every website to change.
I won't blame a disabled user seeking AI-based tools to browse the web to survive with what they have, but I will totally blame the devs who created the situation.