RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:46 AM

> I (cautiously) agree with the sentiment expressed here (and the fact that you
> used "large screen" vs "small screen" wording). However, it could be argued that
> as long there's a link or similar mechanism to go from the (inaccessible) mobile
> view to the (accessible) desktop view - which IS required as per point 4 of the
> definition - then it's fine in the same way that having two alternatives purely on
> desktop is fine?
> Considering that the "desktop" view will be accessible on the phone/tablet (but
> will likely be less *usable* due to the for the user to zoom/scroll
> horizontally/etc)?
>
> i.e. I don't see how a special case can be made to plug the gap only in the
> specific mobile/desktop situation.
[Jason] I agree. Not every bad decision that a Web content developer can make is (or should be) contrary to WCAG. It seems to me that we're dealing with just such a case here.
If responsive design becomes a level AA requirement for accessibility reasons to prevent the need for horizontal scrolling, then the so-called conforming alternate version won't actually conform at Level AA under WCAG 2.1 anyway. Thus I think the right way to address the problem is with substantive WCAG 2.1 success criteria.

________________________________

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.

________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 13:10:16 UTC