Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 30/06/2016 20:26, David MacDonald wrote:
> Given Loretta's response, I think we can formalize this and unify expert
> opinion with a small amendment to the Understanding Conformance document.
>
> It seems this is not a change to the current WCAG 2, therefore we can
> manage this with a sentence added to Understanding Conformance Criteria
> 2. It doesn't need to be part of the normative document. It could read
> like this:
>
> "The full page includes each view of the page that is customized for
> various devices, browsers, or screen sizes. Each of these views would
> need to conform in order for the entire page to conform."
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html

As much as I'd love to just wave this through now, a question: does 
"view" also include, in this definition, an alternative that is served 
from the same URI but has been reached by following an explicit link 
(for argument's sake, the "desktop version" link on the "mobile 
version", or a "screenreader friendly" version, or a version where the 
user had an in-page mechanism to set their preference for text size, 
color contrast, etc)? Because if so, this definition would negate the 
idea of a "conforming alternate version" (and seriously undermine any 
attempt at providing customisation options), unless you explicitly 
exclude those from the definition, a la:

"The full page includes each view of the page that is customized for
  various devices, browsers, or screen sizes. Each of these views (or 
their respective conforming alternate versions) would need to conform in 
order for the entire page to conform."

which I believe would then send the entire discussion back to the start.

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 20:09:12 UTC