Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

I'll try one last time, and then I'm ducking out of this, as I don't 
think we're reaching an understanding.

On 29/06/2016 18:39, David MacDonald wrote:

> If the site follows the new SCs, there is no requirement to get the
> mobile menu right, or any other part of the site specifically sent to
> the mobile view.

If the new SCs cover things such as:
- making sure the layout adapts correctly to any size of screen, small 
and large (including zoom scenarios)
- making sure things work well for various input scenarios, including 
touch and touch+AT

then it also needs to get its mobile menu etc right. If it can't, the 
only way it can loophole out of it is to link to an accessible alternate 
version. THIS accessible alternate version will have to conform to the 
SCs of WCAG 2.1, including:
- making sure the layout adapts correctly to any size of screen, small 
and large (including zoom scenarios)
- making sure things work well for various input scenarios, including 
touch and touch+AT

> Sure, the desktop conforms to WCAG, but it doesn't
> conform to common sense on a mobile device.

Define "common sense on a mobile device". That's the crux of the problem 
here in my view. "Optimized", "common sense" etc are not terms that 
should, in my view, simply be thrown into normative (or even 
non-normative) spec language. But generally: IF this "desktop" version 
conforms to WCAG 2.1, and we make sure that 2.1 includes hard, testable 
SCs that basically mandate whatever it is you mean by "common sense", 
then there is no problem because at this point the users are on a site 
that is accessible to them. IF this site doesn't conform to WCAG 2.1's 
SCs, THEN it can't be counted as an accessible alternate version, which 
THEN means both it and the original "mobile" site also fail automatically.

> Why should people with
> disabilities be forced in this back door when other users get the
> benefits of the mobile optimized site.

Again, what I'm saying is: let's make sure we write SCs that mandate 
whatever you see as being "optimized" to be required for all 
scenarios/devices, instead of trying to make some kind of 
special-casing. I thought we came quite close with one of the "Note 8" 
additions.

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 18:51:50 UTC