Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Here is Gregg's response to the same scenario proposed to Loretta, and it
is essentially the same answer which clinches it for me...

====Gregg's response to the scenario of a an inaccessible Hamburger menu on
mobile device and conforming Mega Menu from the same URI===

I would think about it like I would a site where there was an accessible
alternative - but the alternative was behind a firewall and only available
to some.

Unless the accessible version is available to all - it does not qualify and
an alternative for all (and fails the SC).

They essentially have a page that morphs into an inaccessible form that the
user has no control of.


IN SHORT
- it fails the conformance clause because the accessible alternative  is
only available from the in accessible version under certain conditions -
not at all time.

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 Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> >> I (and I think most others that have dipped into this
> mega-discussion) fall in the latter camp which for this very specific
> scenario (responsive site, no desktop version link) think it does NOT
> pass. Not quite sure who thinks that it does...
>
> I actually fell into the former camp. I felt it passes for a number of reasons, including accessibility support. "I pass with this accessibility technology stack, so I have met the law or the judge who told me to conform to WCAG."
>
> I'm actually quite relieved by Loretta's response ...
>
> >>Using URI is not a good indicator, I'd say.
>
> For better or worse, that is a definition of web page in WCAG. Would take quite a bit to change it...
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef
>
> ​For me with the amendment I propose to the understanding doc of Conf req
> #2, if accepted that would be the end of the issue for me... we can address
> other issues about conforming alternatives as we go forward. They are not
> as pressing to me.​
>
> 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 Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 7:17 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm withdrawing the proposal to amend the conforming alternative
>> definition, and will try, as Patrick, John and Jason suggest, to ensure the
>> concern (about non-conforming breakpoint variations of components) is
>> addressed as we are writing new Success Criteria.
>>
>>
>> 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 Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:25 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:39 PM
>>>
>>> I've rolled back to the Note 8 that we were close on, and added your
>>> note 9.
>>>
>>> *[Jason] Conforming alternate versions have always been seen as a last
>>> resort, so the note doesn’t change anything substantial, in my view (which
>>> is good). They’re surely also too much work for developers unless they’re
>>> generated automatically.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
>>> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
>>> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
>>> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
>>> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
>>> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your compliance.
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>