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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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"

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