Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 29/06/2016 17:33, David MacDonald wrote:
>>>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"

Why? If a hamburger menu is messed up (its trigger doesn't expose the 
correct role, aria-expanded, it doesn't handle focus correctly when 
opened/closed, etc) then it fails WCAG. What's that got to do with this 
discussion?

>> 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>

At the risk of dragging this out even further, I don't think I agree 
with this. Whether something is "optimized" or not does not mean it's 
accessible or not. And again, if the alternative is accessible, it'll 
also be implicitly "optimized" as far as WCAG 2.1 demands (once the 
other SCs are in place).

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

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2016 16:54:14 UTC