Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

I'm thinking, (hoping) that we are coming to agreement that we can all live
with on this even though we may have some differences.

I expect there will be many responsive sites going forward. My experience
is the mega menu turns to hamburger, and other widgets like expand/collapse
change, the rest of the content stays the same. We want to ensure that
those things that change for the mobile don't force the user to go looking
for a link to a site that has been optimized for a faster connection, more
powerful computer, bigger screen etc.

I've incorporated Patrick's language language into Note 8, and provided an
example to ensure that the these specific concerns are covered.

Here it is:


   - *Note 8: Sometimes specifically optimized views are delivered to the
   user agent based on screen size, device type, etc. A WCAG conforming view
   linked from such an optimized view could only be considered a conforming
   alternative if it has the same functionality as this optimized view. For
   example, a large screen view with a mega menu, more content, and more
   complicated interface would not be a conforming alternative to a view
   optimized for small screen because the two have different functionality.


https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_Conformance_Criteria_4


Thoughts?

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 7:11 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 29/06/2016 11:55, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> TL;DR: Should we add something to the accessibility supported section
>> (or somewhere) to make it clear that we have to assume people may only
>> have access to small-screen/touch devices?
>>
>
> Personally, I think that's unnecessary (unless the thinking here is that
> sites may do a doorslam of "you must view this in your desktop browser" if
> a user tries to get to the "desktop" version). Maybe more generally a
> reminder that users and their user agents come in all shapes and sizes,
> with a variety of screen sizes, input mechanisms, etc, and that a
> site/app/content should not preclude any of these from working (which I
> thought WCAG already did, but maybe not as explicitly, in the general
> "accessibility supported" concept).
>
> You could see a link from a mobile site to desktop version as a loophole
>> which significantly decreases the experience for some people, however, I
>> think that’s a diminishing scenario. Even if it weren’t, I think desktop
>> sites would rarely meet WCAG, especially once we get to 2.1.
>>
>
> Indeed. And if the "desktop" alternate did meet WCAG 2.1 (with any new SCs
> covering specific aspects like "must work for touchscreen users", "must
> work well for low-vision users that use zoom, or users on small screens",
> etc), then effectively there's no problem anyway (just the slightly
> puzzling approach that a site may have taken in splitting out two sites,
> when the "desktop" one also works just fine on "mobile" - but there may
> well be legitimate situations where having an alternative IS needed, such
> as a complex drag'n'drop interactive experience which can't be made
> accessible in a reasonable way, and instead offers an alternative version
> which makes it possible to achieve the same thing in a different accessible
> way).
>
> I think Patrick’s proposed addition makes sense, and *perhaps we could
>> add a line in the ‘accessibility supported’ text* to deal with this
>> assumption? I.e. accessibility supported should include various devices,
>> it doesn’t just mean traditional desktop access.
>>
>
> I could certainly live with an addition to "accessibility supported" (as
> long as it's general enough and doesn't use "mobile" / "desktop"
> terminology, except to perhaps give a non-normative example).
>
>
> 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
>
>
>