Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>>As well, what of sites that are NOT responsive? Sites that are
'optimised' for a desktop, and/but that view is also what is served up to
tablets and cell phones? Are you suggesting that we fail content authors
for not creating responsive designs today? (I don't think so, but want to
check any assumptions early.) David referenced the definition of *conforming
alternative* in WCAG 2.0 (
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef), and I will
point out the following as well:

In WCAG, we consider the difference between a usability issue and an
accessibility issue, is whether an issue disproportionally affects people
with disabilities. If an organization doesn't have a mobile view, then
everyone is punished, and it is very rare these days, but we won't require
it because it affects ALL users.

But if they DO propvide a mobile site then it should be accessible.

Honestly, John and Patrick, I can't really understand why we are having
this conversation about not requiring Mobile sites to be accessible...
that's one of the major reasons for a 2.1.

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 1:07 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> >>>David, can you provide us with an example of this use-case? I would
> like to understand how a change in viewport size would affect a blind
> person.
>
> ​They will be on their mobile device, and not likely have a keyboard.​
> Swiping through a mega menu designed for a desktop site with VoiceOver is a
> degraded experience when the mobile menu has been optimized for the mobile
> experience for sighted users...
> The other consideration is that most blind people have some sight and use
> it in conjunction with VoiceOver, and using VoiceOver without using their
> sight because the desktop view is too small for them, is a degraded
> experience for them.
>
>
> 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 12:53 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>