6 ms·

While you absolutely should, I would argue that MCP access would be the OPTIMAL level of accessibility.

_heimdall 7mo ago
Why? What does it add that accessibility features don't cover? And of there's a delta there, why have everyone build WebMCP into their sites rather than improve accessibility specs?
- DrScientist 7mo ago
  Because, thinking bigger picture, having an AI assistant acting on your behalf might be more effective than slow navigation via accessibility features? I get the wider point that if accessibility features were good enough at describing the functionality and intent then you wouldn't need a separate WebMCP. So what does WebMCP do that accessibility doesn't? Seems to me, at cursory reading, it's around providing a direct js interface to the web site ( as oppose to DOM forms ). Kind of mixing an API and a human UI into one single page.
  - _heimdall 7mo ago
    Navigation shouldn't be slow when using accessibility features though. The browser already prices the accessibility tree with full context and semantics of what is on the page and what can be interacted with. I take the same issue when MCP servers are created for CLI tools. LLMs are very good at running Unix commands - make sure your tool has good `--help` docs and let the LLM figure it out just like a human would.
    - DrScientist 7mo ago
      I guess I was asking - assuming that WebMCP isn't totally misguided - which of course is an assumption - is there anything that current accessibility standards can learn from WebMCP - ie why did they feel the need to create it?
      - _heimdall 7mo ago
        I'm not aware of anything WebMCP could add that wouldn't be more useful as an improvement to accessibility tooling instead. MCP is ultimately another solution to trying to make RPC(ish) situations more RESTful. I.e. they need self-documenting, discoverable APIs. That's exactly what you can get from both HTML and the accessibility tree, though. We don't need another implementation for it. My guess (conjecture here) is that all the skills, MCP, WebMCP, etc talk is a manifestation of all the model providers and VCs backing them trying desperately to have others find ways to make LLMs worth the cost.
        DrScientist 7mo ago
        Isn't Aria there to describe the structure of the page so that say visually impaired users gain the same information as any other user? ie the interpretation of what that page then does, and so the appropriate action to take is largely left to the human user post description - just as web you load a page and look at it - the human brain works out what to do based on those visual and textual clues. This leaves agents trying to work out page intent, allowed values for text fields - parsing returned pages for working out success or failure etc. I'm assuming that's why they want what is effectively an in page API - that massively improves machine accessibility and can piggy back on browser authentication systems so the agent can operate on the users behalf.
        _heimdall 7mo ago
        The website is the API though. HTML is one of the few RESTful systems people still use today, build semantics into the page and humans and LLMs can understand how to use it. A11y specs and APIs are just a way of presenting those semantics differently, often for those who can't see the page, whether visually impaired or in this case an LLM. At least in my view, we should expect anything claimed to be artificial intelligence to be able to interact with things much like a human would. I'm not going to build an MCP for a CLI tool, for example, I'll just make sure it has a useful man page or `--help` command.
        7mo ago
Natfan 7mo ago
not from a legal perspective

Why? What does it add that accessibility features don't cover? And of there's a delta there, why have everyone build WebMCP into their sites rather than improve accessibility specs?

DrScientist 7mo ago
Because, thinking bigger picture, having an AI assistant acting on your behalf might be more effective than slow navigation via accessibility features? I get the wider point that if accessibility features were good enough at describing the functionality and intent then you wouldn't need a separate WebMCP. So what does WebMCP do that accessibility doesn't? Seems to me, at cursory reading, it's around providing a direct js interface to the web site ( as oppose to DOM forms ). Kind of mixing an API and a human UI into one single page.
- _heimdall 7mo ago
  Navigation shouldn't be slow when using accessibility features though. The browser already prices the accessibility tree with full context and semantics of what is on the page and what can be interacted with. I take the same issue when MCP servers are created for CLI tools. LLMs are very good at running Unix commands - make sure your tool has good `--help` docs and let the LLM figure it out just like a human would.
  - DrScientist 7mo ago
    I guess I was asking - assuming that WebMCP isn't totally misguided - which of course is an assumption - is there anything that current accessibility standards can learn from WebMCP - ie why did they feel the need to create it?
    - _heimdall 7mo ago
      I'm not aware of anything WebMCP could add that wouldn't be more useful as an improvement to accessibility tooling instead. MCP is ultimately another solution to trying to make RPC(ish) situations more RESTful. I.e. they need self-documenting, discoverable APIs. That's exactly what you can get from both HTML and the accessibility tree, though. We don't need another implementation for it. My guess (conjecture here) is that all the skills, MCP, WebMCP, etc talk is a manifestation of all the model providers and VCs backing them trying desperately to have others find ways to make LLMs worth the cost.
      - DrScientist 7mo ago
        Isn't Aria there to describe the structure of the page so that say visually impaired users gain the same information as any other user? ie the interpretation of what that page then does, and so the appropriate action to take is largely left to the human user post description - just as web you load a page and look at it - the human brain works out what to do based on those visual and textual clues. This leaves agents trying to work out page intent, allowed values for text fields - parsing returned pages for working out success or failure etc. I'm assuming that's why they want what is effectively an in page API - that massively improves machine accessibility and can piggy back on browser authentication systems so the agent can operate on the users behalf.
        _heimdall 7mo ago
        The website is the API though. HTML is one of the few RESTful systems people still use today, build semantics into the page and humans and LLMs can understand how to use it. A11y specs and APIs are just a way of presenting those semantics differently, often for those who can't see the page, whether visually impaired or in this case an LLM. At least in my view, we should expect anything claimed to be artificial intelligence to be able to interact with things much like a human would. I'm not going to build an MCP for a CLI tool, for example, I'll just make sure it has a useful man page or `--help` command.
        7mo ago

Natfan 7mo ago

not from a legal perspective