RE: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view

> If there is no link to the desktop site (or some similar mechanism that achieves the same end result) then it fails point 4 of https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef


I don't think it is currently clear that a desktop site is fully accessible that the mobile site must also be accessible or a link is provided.  A person testing for conformance to WCAG could say the desktop site is accessible and we don't support mobile accessibility so there is no need to put a link from the mobile site to the desktop site because they are only testing and conforming in the scope of desktop.  But what is missing is that the mobile version may be triggered by zoom.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:21 AM
To: WCAG; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Desktop view should not be conforming alternative to mobile view

On 28/06/2016 14:56, Jonathan Avila wrote:
>> How, exactly? IF a mobile-optimized version omits functionality found in the desktop view, that's not an accessibility problem - it's something that affects all users.
>
> It is if there is no link to the desktop site

If there is no link to the desktop site (or some similar mechanism that achieves the same end result) then it fails point 4 of https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef


"at least one of the following is true:
a) the conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an accessibility-supported mechanism, or
b) the non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version, or
c) the non-conforming version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version"

meaning that it doesn't count as an "alternate version", meaning that it can't use the loophole of "yeah but our desktop version is accessible", meaning that it fails all the WCAG 2.0 SCs where it's not accessible.

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 14:27:24 UTC