Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>Without knowing what those differences may be, we can’t tell whether
you’re exemplifying the distinction drawn in the definition, or making a
case to change it – a major contrast, since the definition is normative.

I'm just using the scenarios almost word for word that Alan used that you
said would be different functionality and therefore not qualify. I
personally don't have a problem if the definition changes in 2.1. If it's
covered great, if its not covered let's plug the hole.

My concern is this scenario:

... Mobile user who is blind lands on site with his phone. Mobile menu is
characteristically inaccessible. There is a link at the bottom of the page
to the desktop view that she doesn't know about, but eventually finds. And
she is forced to use a heavy link filled desktop view with VoiceOver,
turning on and off the rotor to chose different elements as her swipe down
action. While sighted people are happily using the mobile view and mobile
menu.

Let's say this site conforms to WCAG 2, which is the position of some.

After a few sites like that she runs into some sites where the desktop view
doesn't conform to WCAG. So all that work to find the desktop link is
wasted, and after a few more like that she throws up her hands and says. "I
don't try using desktop view anymore, when they work they are a pain, and
when they don't I waste my time finding the link"... and mobile becomes a
lousy experience for them.



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 Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:12 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 28, 2016 5:09 PM
>
> In my experience, I've rarely found a mobile menu that works before
> remediation.
>
>
>
> This is one issue I would like to ensure is addressed in WCAG 2.1, without
> a loophole, which is why I say "changed menu mechanism". Perhaps there is a
> more precise way to define a mobile menu without actually saying it... I
> guess an inaccessible mobile menu has some functionality removed. Here is a
> specific list of common failures
>
>
>
> -hamburger menu doesn't get focus
>
> -Menu links don't follow the button, but are visually via css from the
> bottom of the page
>
> -Can't access sub menu items
>
> -Expanded collapsed state not announced
>
> etc...
>
>
>
> *[Jason] *The above are, as you noted, failures to conform to WCAG,
> whereas the question was about differences in information or functionality
> that would result in the page with the other sort of menu (for want of a
> better description) not being a “conforming alternate version” of the page
> with the “mobile-optimized” menu.
>
> Without knowing what those differences may be, we can’t tell whether
> you’re exemplifying the distinction drawn in the definition, or making a
> case to change it – a major contrast, since the definition is normative.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>