RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

While I agree that tone was a bit testy, some just might be too frustrated (at this moment) to play nice *all the time* – I have to question here, who is calling the kettle black?....:-)

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:31 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

 

> Can we please stop with this melodramatic rhetoric please? Just because somebody disagrees with you, there's no need to switch from rational discussion to appeals to sentiment (and implying, consciously or not, that those who don't share your view are somehow trying to short-change people with disabilities, which frankly I find mildly offensive).

 

+1, in case I was not specific enough in my previous comment.

 

JF

 

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote:

On 28/06/2016 17:53, David MacDonald wrote:

I don't agree ...

I don't think sticking a link to a desktop site at the bottom of the
mobile view is the spirit of the alternate version provision as we
created it.

This is a hugely degraded experience for a low vision user and also a
blind person who is going to be accessing a desktop site in a mobile
browser ... this is not at all what we intended with the alternate
version exemption.


And that would be caught by appropriate SCs from the Low Vision TF, and for a blind person...what, specifically (providing that the desktop version is accessible)?

The alternate version exemption came from the old alternative text
version provision in WCAG 1.1. We didn't want to forbid people from
making an alternative like that if it was kept up to date and had all
the information.

WCAG 2.1 will be out in 2018. I do not want to tell my clients, in age
where we fly to mars, "don't worry about mobile accessibility, just put
a link to the desktop version in all your responsive designs."


Then let's remove the alternative provision altogether. There's no sense in making exceptions for "on desktop (whatever that is) you're allowed to provide an alternative, but on mobile (whatever that is) you're not".

If we do that, let's just close up the Mobile task force now and not
waste our time. People with disabilities deserve better.


Can we please stop with this melodramatic rhetoric please? Just because somebody disagrees with you, there's no need to switch from rational discussion to appeals to sentiment (and implying, consciously or not, that those who don't share your view are somehow trying to short-change people with disabilities, which frankly I find mildly offensive).



P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk <http://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





 

-- 

John Foliot

Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

 <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> john.foliot@deque.com

 

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion