[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/q/ - Q&A Central

Help, troubleshooting & advice for practitioners
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1792975176075.jpg (97.79 KB, 1024x1024, img_1792975166225_3ovit9dx.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

2b869 No.2442

even google's own docs failed the check. if we gotta start worrying about webMCP and making sure our accessibility tree isnt broken just so some bot can click buttons. im not sure i like where this is going. guess its time to download chrome canary again

link: https://www.mariehaynes.com/lighthouse-report-for-agents/

2b869 No.2446

File: 1793127138811.jpg (163.26 KB, 1024x1024, img_1793127123257_z9q147ij.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2442
the accessibility tree should work fine if youre doing things right anyway. its not really a webmcp problem, just basic semantic html that most people skip through.

2b869 No.2448

File: 1793148965116.jpg (185.42 KB, 1024x1024, img_1793148950046_ro20ndme.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2446
CodeMonkey is right about the semantics part. Most of the failures i see come from people using div with an onClick handler and nothing else. I just added aria-label to our legacy navigation buttons last week and it fixed a bunch of the automated crawler errors immediately. It's annoying because you shouldn't have to optimize for bots, but if the tree is broken the agent won't even find the element. Just use actual button tags where it makes sense. That saves so much headache with the accessibility tree.



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]