RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>> I (and I think most others that have dipped into this

mega-discussion) fall in the latter camp which for this very specific

scenario (responsive site, no desktop version link) think it does NOT
pass.

David, I feel a bit snookered here because you were talking about a mobile page with a link to an alternative desktop site that was not responsive and now suddenly you changed to say you were talking about responsive sites with no alternative.  This was misleading and I would not have supported an inaccessible responsive view without an alternative.

So for the record, if a responsive site isn’t accessible at a particular breakpoint and there is no alternative I see that as a failure of the current WCAG.  What I still feel is unclear – and hopefully something the LVTF will address – is that responsive versions may have different functionality and some low vision users are forced into breakpoints by using zoom or low resolution they may not have access to content that would appear on other’s desktops even when they are using a desktop and that they can’t get the desktop functionality with their level of zoom or resolution – that remains an issue.

Jonathan


From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:36 PM
To: White, Jason J
Cc: Patrick H. Lauke; WCAG; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop


>> I (and I think most others that have dipped into this

mega-discussion) fall in the latter camp which for this very specific

scenario (responsive site, no desktop version link) think it does NOT

pass. Not quite sure who thinks that it does...

I actually fell into the former camp. I felt it passes for a number of reasons, including accessibility support. "I pass with this accessibility technology stack, so I have met the law or the judge who told me to conform to WCAG."

I'm actually quite relieved by Loretta's response ...

>>Using URI is not a good indicator, I'd say.

For better or worse, that is a definition of web page in WCAG. Would take quite a bit to change it...

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef

​For me with the amendment I propose to the understanding doc of Conf req #2, if accepted that would be the end of the issue for me... we can address other issues about conforming alternatives as we go forward. They are not as pressing to me.​

Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:613.235.4902>

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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 7:17 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>> wrote:
I'm withdrawing the proposal to amend the conforming alternative definition, and will try, as Patrick, John and Jason suggest, to ensure the concern (about non-conforming breakpoint variations of components) is addressed as we are writing new Success Criteria.


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:613.235.4902>

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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 7:25 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:


From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 5:39 PM
I've rolled back to the Note 8 that we were close on, and added your note 9.
[Jason] Conforming alternate versions have always been seen as a last resort, so the note doesn’t change anything substantial, in my view (which is good). They’re surely also too much work for developers unless they’re generated automatically.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________