Re: About proposed 'conforming alternative version' technique

Dear WCAG WG, 

The fact that progressive enhancement and responsive web design is such a hand-in-glove approach was the main reason for including the term "responsive" in the proposed technique.

I was reminded again of this fact after looking at the following article - http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/10/master-responsive-design-with-modernizr/

I shall look forward to discussing the updated technique (focused entirely toward progressive enhancement) in your call tomorrow - but would also like to explore the phrase "responsive web pages designed with progressive enhancement" if there is time - as I think this reflects what is actually happening "at the sharp end"...

Very best regards

Alistair 

On 19 Jun 2014, at 09:06, Alistair Garrison wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>