Re: About proposed 'conforming alternative version' technique

Dear WCAG WG, 

I have now had a chance to make changes to this technique which clarify, and hold on to, the intention behind this technique - focusing it entirely toward progressive enhancement.  I've also adopted a large proportion of the text supplied by AWK and made some minor copy edits.

If this new version is acceptable to the group I have asked that its title is changed to "Creating a conforming alternate version for a web page designed with progressive enhancement".

I've been asked by Joshue O'Connor to attend your meeting next Tuesday, and will be more than happy to chat over this technique then.

Very best regards

Alistair Garrison 

On 18 Jun 2014, at 14:37, Sailesh Panchang wrote:

> Reference proposal  [1] below.
> 1. Should this technique be titled along the lines of SCR24 (Using progressive enhancement to open new windows on user request) for instance:
> Suggestion: "Using progressive enhancement to provide access to a conforming alternate version for web pages which are designed to be responsive"
> 
> 2. "provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language" is at odds with responsive design?
> On a mobile platform, the home page of a site may be quite different when compared to its desktop version,... no? And there may be differences between a tablet and mobile phone version too.
> 
> 3. Assuming for a moment that CSS is the only method of doing responsive design, C29  will accomplish this. But I think the chief difference is that in responsive design, the info content and functionality will differ across device sizes. So C29 may not apply in toto.
> 
> 4. So, in short, what this technique is suggesting is that a non-conformant  page on any device should have a link (or mechanism) to get to a single conformant page, right?
> 
> Let us say on a desktop, a user is able to get to content on a page represented by A, B, C, D, E and F. On a tablet only A, C, D and F are rendered and on a mobile phone, A, D, and E are rendered. So is the expectation that one should be able to get to accessible version of the page containing everything from A to F from a tablet or phone if the tablet / phone versions are non-conformant?
> 
> A tablet user may rightly expect to see only an accessible version of a page containing A, C, D and F I imagine.
> 
> Refer: [1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Using_a_script_load_toggle_for_feature_detection_libraries_to_provide_a_conforming_alternate_version
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Sailesh Panchang
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 08:09:33 UTC