Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>David, I feel a bit snookered

I think Jonathan is feeling that I bailed on a couple of the themes of the
thread that remain important.

1) What about the guy in Walmart with the link at the bottom of the mobile
page to a conforming Desktop site (conforming alternative)?
2) what about the the same guy where the link is to the conforming desktop
"view" of the same responsive site?

My core concern in the thread is the clarification that the definition of
the "full page" in conformance Criteria 2 includes every break point. This
has been addressed in issue 197 which will solve this concern.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197

The two issues above for the guy in Walmart remain outstanding. Patrick as
invited us to try to solve them in the SCs. I'm OK with that.Regarding the
conforming alternative page, I think we'll need to make several important
decisions as a group.

I think we have to decide if the link at the bottom of the page to a
desktop view, or a desktop site is ok with us for 2.1, currently in WCAG
2.0 it is OK.
If we think it's OK, then we have to manage the frustration for our friend
in Walmart by:

1) clarifying that the conforming alternative link has to go to the SAME
page content, not to the homepage of the desktop version (unless he was on
the homepage of the mobile view). This is already required in WCAG 2 but we
need to make it more explicit in a multi device world.

2) Make the link to the desktop view more *discoverable*, and warn him that
this page does not conform and relies on a conforming alternative.

For the second point I think, for 2.1, the link needs to be on the TOP of
the page rather than the bottom and it needs to inform the user that this
is the conforming alternative, thereby informing them not to waste their
time on this non-conforming page soething like <a
href="...desktopview...">Accessible version of this page</a>

I think there is also this note in Understanding conformance that we need
to address for 2.1 which I don't know what to do with,

*Note 4: *Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate different
technology environments or user groups. Each version should be as
conformant as possible. One version would need to be fully conformant in
order to meet conformance requirement 1
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#cc1>.

https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head

perhaps Jason's proposal will solve it.

Anyway, for me I'm interested in what will emerge from LVTF and COGA ...

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 9:05 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> WOHOO!
>
> I've filed an issue to get it on a call for consensus, and add the
> paragraph to the Understanding Conformance Requirement Section...
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197
>
>
> 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 5:42 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2016 22:21, David MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we can manage it 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 (or
>>> their respective conforming alternate versions) would need to conform in
>>> order for the entire page to conform. On the other hand, if a user
>>> voluntarily chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or personalizes
>>> the state of the page for accessibility reasons, this new state does not
>>> necessarily need to pass every Success Criteria in order to personalize
>>> the page, because the conforming version can be reached by undoing the
>>> setting."
>>>
>>
>> Much to the relief of everybody on the mailing lists, I'll cautiously say
>> that I could live with that ;)
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>