Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 28/06/2016 14:13, David MacDonald wrote:

> not forcing blind people to go home and use
> their desktops because the mobile view doesn't work.

To be absolutely clear on where I'm coming from:  IF a site, when viewed 
on a mobile/tablet/small screen viewport is inaccessible, and it does 
NOT provide a mechanism for the user to reach (on that same 
device/viewport) the accessible "desktop" version, then it fails under 
WCAG 2.0 (for all the bits where it's inaccessible), and can't claim to 
be an "alternate version" as, per point 4 of the definition, it's not 
allowing the user to reach the desktop version.

This is why I don't think specifically calling out "the mobile 
version/view needs to be accessible" is needed, and it feels wrong/weird 
to single it out.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 14:10:03 UTC