RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

+1 with David’s comment.

It says to me “mobile accessibility is not needed”.

I had the same thoughts of this indicating we can scrap all the work of the Mobile Accessibility task force.


Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:55 PM
To: John Foliot
Cc: Patrick H. Lauke; WCAG; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: 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
 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 

twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
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

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