Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Hi David,

> 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.

Why not, and can you point to past discussions that would back up the claim
that the thinking was for "more"? By your own admission, this arose from
the earlier WCAG 1.0 Requirement "...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." (I don't see anything about "experience" there BTW)


> a hugely degraded experience for a low vision user and also a blind person

Strong claim, but where is the proof? Sadly, I also have to remind us that
legally accessible and "awesome user experience" are not equal, and while I
will advocate for "awesome user experience" 8 days a week, we also need to
be cognizant of the difference between legally "accessible" and awesome
user experience. We should not and (IMHO cannot) use WCAG as some form of
bully stick to force site owners to do things that certainly improve the UX
for all users, but are not explicitly real barriers to PwD.


> 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."

Nobody but David MacDonald has said that David, and I don't think that
comment, or the one about packing up the Mobile TF, are very helpful (it
instead comes off like a temper tantrum). You have not provided any
specifics, no examples of where this is truly an accessibility problem
(versus a usability / UX problem that impacts more than just PwD), but
instead it comes off as a blanket statement that wants to be extremely
prescriptive in what site/content owners MUST do - you are straying from
Principles to specifics, and I will suggest that that isn't really in the
spirit of the Web Content Accessibility >>GUIDELINES<<.

Look, we've set up the Mobile TF to look at, and propose new Success
Criteria for WCAG 2.1, and I agree with what Patrick said:

"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"


I'll further add that if the mobile site offers a desktop "alternative",
and that alternative isn't any more accessible to PwD on a mobile device
(where that link to the desktop version is asserting that it is the
functional requirement for that claim), then they've not met the
requirement of the definition, and specifically #2: provides all of the
same information and functionality
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#functiondef> - so it fails.

David, I'm confused. You write to the WCAG WG reminding us that SC need to
be positively worded statements, and then you start a thread that is about
setting a negative condition: specifically "Conforming alternative for
mobile should not be Desktop". I think that as a start, perhaps returning
to the idea of setting this out as a positive statement would be helpful,
and that a clear indication of the *barrier* (and poor UX really isn't a
barrier to PwD any more than it is to everyone) that is being addressed.
Looking to get some insistive MUST-like language into WCAG to force a
client to do something is not what WCAG is for.

JF


On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:53 AM, 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
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion