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

On 28/06/2016 15:26, Jonathan Avila wrote:
> I don't think it is currently clear that a desktop site is fully
> accessible that the mobile site must also be accessible or a link is
> provided.  A person testing for conformance to WCAG could say the
> desktop site is accessible and we don't support mobile accessibility
> so there is no need to put a link from the mobile site to the desktop
> site because they are only testing and conforming in the scope of
> desktop.  But what is missing is that the mobile version may be
> triggered by zoom.

Then that to me is a problem of incomplete testing/auditing. Even purely 
for desktop sites, I check if there are responsive breakpoints, and 
retest at different breakpoints separately (and treat each functionally 
different breakpoint as a separate test sample to be audited).

And assuming Low Vision / COGA / whoever are working on SCs that cover 
responsive layouts, those issues would be covered there too, no? Doesn't 
require a special exemption/notice about "mobile vs desktop" in my view 
in WCAG/its definition of "alternate version" itself.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 14:34:41 UTC