Hi Patrick, I think we are agreeing. JF On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > 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 > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 15:05:05 UTC