RE: does alternate version comply with SC 2.1

The way I like to respond to these sort of proposals is to turn them around.



You say the tabular version is equivalent?  Okay, so howabout we only post that version then?



Dollars to donuts, the fans of the timeline will have no problem explaining why the two are not equivalent!



________________________________
From: harry.loots@googlemail.com [harry.loots@googlemail.com] on behalf of Harry Loots [harry.loots@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:10 AM
To: W3C WAI ig
Subject: does alternate version comply with SC 2.1

Hi all
I have a situation at work, where my guidance on conformance is being questioned:

The solution offers users a timeline (Simile Timeline), which has a number of events marked on a timeline. When one clicks with a mouse on an event, further information is displayed about the event.
The technologies in use are HTML, CSS, JavaScript.

Currently this is only usable via a mouse click.

The developer argues that by providing an alternative version in tabular format that this conforms (in his opinion) to SC 2.1 (2.1 Keyboard Accessible: Make all functionality available from a keyboard).

The users who are affected by this, are users who are unable to use a mouse due to mobility issues (not sight-related), and by being forced to use the table, they are denied the advantages offered by the timeline (e.g.: context, comparison at a glance, etc). In my opinion they are not being offered an equivalent but a version of lesser standard.

I need to provide a response, that will unequivocally make the point that the alternate version is not an acceptable solution to the problem, and that the mouse actions should be keyboard enabled.

Please help!

Kind regards
Harry