Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view

Mike wrote:

> conforming mobile apps do not need to link to their desktop counterparts
and we should make that explicit.

I'd object to that strongly Mike. I cannot envision *any* scenario where
we explicitly say "Don't Link To Something", and that is a horrible
precedent to be setting IMHO.

JF

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Great suggestion, David! And I would also suggest that conforming mobile
> apps do not need to link to their desktop counterparts and we should make
> that explicit.
>
> Mike
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:41 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> There are two parts of the definition for conforming alternative that
> could be used to ensure a mobile view is notleft inaccessible with the
> desktop view as the conforming alternative.
>
> ​      "​
> 2. provides all of the same information and functionality in the same
> human language
> ​"
> ,
>
> A mobile view has different functionality  (sort of) than a desktop view
> ​.
>
>
>      ​"T​
> he conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an
> accessibility-supported mechanism
> ​""​
>
>
> Many mobile pages load automatically and don't have a mechanism to switch
> to desktop view.
> ​
>
> ​
> ​But I don't think these parts of the definitions are strong enough to
> ensure the mobile view must be made to conform to WCAG.​
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> ​We currently have a bit of a hole in WCAG 2 that I think we should plug
>> in 2.1.
>>
>> If a web page has a conforming alternative, then it doesn't need to
>> conform itself. However, in the world of responsible design, it means if
>> the desktop version conforms, the mobile version does not need to. I think
>> we should plug this in WCAG 2.1.
>>
>> It might be as  simple as adding a sentence to the definition of
>> conforming alternative that large screen views of web pages do not qualify
>> as a conforming alternative to small screen views. It will take some
>> thought as to the exact wording and approach but it needs to be addressed I
>> woulds say, otherwise organizations may just say they don't meed to make
>> the mobile view accessible.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef​
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion