Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

I don't agree ...

I don't think sticking a link to a desktop site at the bottom of the mobile
view is the spirit of the alternate version provision as we created it.

This is a hugely degraded experience for a low vision user and also a blind
person who is going to be accessing a desktop site in a mobile browser ...
this is not at all what we intended with the alternate version exemption.

The alternate version exemption came from the old alternative text version
provision in WCAG 1.1. We didn't want to forbid people from making an
alternative like that if it was kept up to date and had all the information.

WCAG 2.1 will be out in 2018. I do not want to tell my clients, in age
where we fly to mars, "don't worry about mobile accessibility, just put a
link to the desktop version in all your responsive designs."

If we do that, let's just close up the Mobile task force now and not waste
our time. People with disabilities deserve better.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:04 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> 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
>