Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>If the site is so atrocious, it will also be atrocious to "desktop" users
on a desktop/laptop.

Using an accessible large screen site on mobile using VoiceOver or Talkback
is a much worse experience than an accessible mobile site.  Users without
disabilities happily use the mobile site that cost $200,000 to optimize for
them. It's like saying,
"our restaurant is accessible, just wheel around to the back entrance by
the dumpster and say hello to the chef as you wheel through the kitchen,
and we'll guide you to your romantic dinner with your partner, like
everyone else".

It seems to me this position effectively turns our Mobile task force work
into a "nice to have" set of advice, that can be avoided if the author
simply provides a link to the conforming desktop site. Can you explain to
me how that is not true?

>In any case, it seems (?) that the addition of a note to the definiton of
"accessible alternate version" will sufficiently reassure you that
developers won't see the "link to desktop" as an exoneration in these cases?

That is right. The proposed note 8 solves it for me. It clarifies that
screen views optimized for a different platform are not accessible
alternatives under this definition, unless they have the same
functionality.

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 Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:10 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 29/06/2016 01:14, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If the site is so atrocious, it will also be atrocious to "desktop" users
> on a desktop/laptop. Bear in mind that the desktop version also needs to
> conform to WCAG, so things like 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks also apply.
>
> Additionally: even "desktop" sites often use things like dropdown menus
> etc for navigation, which - if the site passes WCAG 2.0, which it must to
> be counted as an "accessible alternate version" - will be coded correctly
> to expands/collapse, expose the correct role/state, and so on...so it's not
> necessarily always this dichotomy of "nice slick mobile version vs clunky
> and complex desktop version".
>
> In any case, it seems (?) that the addition of a note to the definiton of
> "accessible alternate version" will sufficiently reassure you that
> developers won't see the "link to desktop" as an exoneration in these cases?
>
>
> 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
>
>
>