The Best Of The Internets

This is a sobering but necessary reminder that the open web’s current crisis is not theoretical; it’s already playing out across publishing, open source, standards, and shared infrastructure.

I appreciate how clearly Anil connects dots that too many people are still treating as separate problems. This isn’t just about AI summaries siphoning traffic from publishers or slop code drowning maintainers or bad actors ignoring long-standing norms like robots.txt. It’s all of those things at once. The through-line is extraction: taking value from open systems without giving anything back, then undermining the very ecosystems that made that extraction possible in the first place.

The good of the web only exists because of the openness of the web. They can’t just keep on taking and taking without expecting people to finally draw a line and saying “enough”.

If you care about the web as a public good, this post is worth your time.

The real takeaway is that documentation written for clarity is better for everyone — human or machine!

In other words, AI use is reinforcing what good documentation has always required: clear structure, explicit language, sensible headings, and fewer assumptions about what the reader already knows. That’s good for machines, sure, but it’s even better for people navigating with assistive tech, reading in a second language, or simply trying to get an answer quickly.

AI has not invented new rules for writing, it has made the cost of ignoring the old ones obvious.

Eric does an excellent job outlining the kinds of accessibility issues design systems and automated tooling can reduce, but never fully eliminate.

This is the part too many teams miss: accessibility doesn’t end at the component boundary. A well-built component library can give you a stronger foundation, but it can’t guarantee the right labels, the right heading structure, the right focus management, or the right overall experience once those pieces are assembled into an interface. That work still requires judgment, care, and testing with actual people.

This is an important piece about where power actually lives on the web: not in the specification itself, but in whether powerful players choose to participate, implement, and ship.

I also appreciate Mark’s call for more ambition here. Too often, we talk about the web as if it’s destined to be an OS for web apps rather than a public-interest platform in its own right. That’s not inevitable. But getting somewhere better requires recognizing that refusal, delay, and strategic disinterest can be every bit as consequential as formal opposition.

This is a terrific demonstration of how far the platform has come: a richly styled select that leans on native semantics, native accessibility, and progressive enhancement instead of fighting the browser.

What I especially appreciate here is the restraint. Yes, there’s some clever CSS and a little JavaScript to help with positioning, but the whole thing is built on top of the platform, not in spite of it. That’s the interesting takeaway for me: we can build interfaces that feel bespoke without throwing away the reliability and accessibility native controls already give us.

People are not static, we are dynamic. In order to meet our needs at any point in our lives or day, the UIs we create must be able to adapt to us — not the other way around.

A few years ago, a couple students at the University of Washington asked me to come to their campus for a visit. They gave me a demo of an early prototype they’d been working on — a haptic feedback device that could allow someone who is Blind or low vision to follow a game. The demo took video data from a tennis match and mapped it onto the haptic tablet. It felt like Pong, but they had a bolder vision — tackling fast-moving and complicated sports like basketball, football, American football, and hockey.

I immediately invited them to pitch us for the AI for Accessibility Grant Program that I ran for Microsoft. With so much focus on assistive technology to enable folks to work and accomplish common life tasks, I loved that the OneCourt team was interested in enabling people with disabilities to enjoy leisure activities like sporting events. Moreover, I saw the potential to enable Blind and low-vision parents to experience their kids’ sporting events, which could be life-changing for them.

Needless to say, they wowed both me and the rest of the seleciton committee. We funded them to expand their prototypes and pursue partnerships with different professional sports leagues, teams, and venues. They were ambitious and it’s paying off.

Fast forward a few years and they’re enabling a handful of Blind & low vision sports fans to exerience the Super Bowl in a whole new way, using their technology. It’s amazing and I could not be more proud of them.

Congrats y’all!

Excellent post and primer on progressive enhancement. I particularly love this framing:

progressive enhancement is not about preventing failure, it’s about defining what must always work.

I also want one of those ”Wat als de JavaScript uit staat?“ stickers.