Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>In a responsive site you would not get a link to a ‘desktop’ version.

I think this is very common.  I have seen and evaluated many mobile sites
with a link at the bottom of the page that says "Desktop version" and it
just serves up the same URL, without the breakpoint for mobile.

>>>In my mind this is already covered by the concept of accessibility
supported, as small/touch screen devices are common, therefore should be
included.

I wish I could agree with you... this is what I want, I want it to be
already covered. I don't believe it is.

I have an action item to ask other old timers to WCAG their opinions. But
here is my thinking. If the page has just ONE, WCAG conforming view, then
it passed WCAG. Someone can claim conformance to WCAG and in their internal
conformance statement say "accessibility supported for us means JAWS and
IE, and a 22" desktop monitor". This stack meets the accessibility support
requirements of WCAG. But they have met any law or judge that requires this
site meet WCAG.


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 Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> I wrote:
>
> >>If you provide *one website* with *multiple breakpoints*, it has to meet
> WCAG 2.0/2.1 at *all breakpoints*. If you swap in a different menu at a
> different screensize, each ‘version’ has to meet WCAG.
>
>
>
> David replied:
>
> > This is what the entire 75 email thread to the list has been about for
> me, summed up in one sentence.
>
>
>
> Ok, well let’s not confuse the issue with talking about alternate versions
> then!
>
>
>
> In a responsive site you would not get a link to a ‘desktop’ version. If
> there is a link, it is an alternative version, and a different kettle of
> fish.
>
>
>
> In my mind this is already covered by the concept of accessibility
> supported, as small/touch screen devices are common, therefore should be
> included.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>