Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>So even if there are "more content", "additional interface elements" etc
in the alternate version, it counts as alternate version under the current
definition/note 2.

I'm not sure. That was my original assumption. However, it says multiple
pages, it doesn't say "more complicated, bandwidth heavy, complicated menu,
etc..."

But I agree it is a concern worth addressing.  I know I've been on the
fence about failing messed up hamburger menus. I usually say "fixing it
lowers the risk of complaint"

However, Dr. Jason White, who was an editor of WCAG 2, for whom I have
great respect, made the point in response to Alan's concern that
different characteristics in the mobile view constitute different
functionality, and therefore are already covered in WCAG2.

I'm trying to choose the path of least change to the existing standard
WCAG2 for V2.1, and if it can be interpreted that way by a past editor, I
am willing to go with that. That is what I worked with all yesterday, to
try to work it up by clarification of the definition of functionality,
rather than make a change for 2.1. I think Note 2 can be amended...

Our conforming alternative allowance in WCAG2 predates responsive design,
breakpoints, and mobile versions of sites. We have a new reality now, and I
think it needs addressing. In WCAG 2, it was intended to be SPECIFICALLY
designed as an alternative. How about this amendment to Note 2?

> Note 2: The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page
with the original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of
multiple pages). <add>However, it should not force the user to navigate to
a view optimized for another platform.</add>

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



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 10:08 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 29/06/2016 14:51, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> *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 complicated
>> menu, more content, or additional interface elements would not be a
>> conforming alternative to a view optimized for small screen because the
>> two have different functionality.
>>
>
> There's a danger here of directly contradicting Note 2 (though the note
> seems to be aimed at the "other way", going from a complex to a simplified
> version)
>
> "The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
> original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of multiple
> pages)."
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef
>
> So even if there are "more content", "additional interface elements" etc
> in the alternate version, it counts as alternate version under the current
> definition/note 2.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>