- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:34:01 +0100
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 28/06/2016 15:26, Jonathan Avila wrote: > 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. Then that to me is a problem of incomplete testing/auditing. Even purely for desktop sites, I check if there are responsive breakpoints, and retest at different breakpoints separately (and treat each functionally different breakpoint as a separate test sample to be audited). And assuming Low Vision / COGA / whoever are working on SCs that cover responsive layouts, those issues would be covered there too, no? Doesn't require a special exemption/notice about "mobile vs desktop" in my view in WCAG/its definition of "alternate version" itself. 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 14:34:34 UTC