Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Hi Patrick,

I think we are agreeing.

JF

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 28/06/2016 14:13, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> not forcing blind people to go home and use
>> their desktops because the mobile view doesn't work.
>>
>
> To be absolutely clear on where I'm coming from:  IF a site, when viewed
> on a mobile/tablet/small screen viewport is inaccessible, and it does NOT
> provide a mechanism for the user to reach (on that same device/viewport)
> the accessible "desktop" version, then it fails under WCAG 2.0 (for all the
> bits where it's inaccessible), and can't claim to be an "alternate version"
> as, per point 4 of the definition, it's not allowing the user to reach the
> desktop version.
>
> This is why I don't think specifically calling out "the mobile
> version/view needs to be accessible" is needed, and it feels wrong/weird to
> single it out.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion