Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 30/06/2016 19:07, David MacDonald wrote:

> **Loretta's response:**
[...]
> We had a lot if relevant discussion when trying to define web page (or
> all the alternate terms we were considering). Part of the discussion was
> about web apps, which dynamically change what is delivered from the same
> URI. As I recall, we concluded that any version of the page that could
> be delivered from that URI had to conform in order to claim that the URI
> conformed.

Using URI is not a good indicator, I'd say. For instance, a site may 
have customisation controls (e.g. switch to high-contrast mode) which 
reloads the exact same URI but with customisations enabled. Saying that 
the non-customised and customised version, delivered under the same URI, 
need be conformant makes little sense (and would invalidate many "a 
mechanism is available..." type wordings in WCAG.

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 Thursday, 30 June 2016 18:28:11 UTC