Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

> Can we please stop with this melodramatic rhetoric please? Just because
somebody disagrees with you, there's no need to switch from rational
discussion to appeals to sentiment (and implying, consciously or not, that
those who don't share your view are somehow trying to short-change people
with disabilities, which frankly I find mildly offensive).

+1, in case I was not specific enough in my previous comment.

JF

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 28/06/2016 17:53, David MacDonald 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.
>>
>
> And that would be caught by appropriate SCs from the Low Vision TF, and
> for a blind person...what, specifically (providing that the desktop version
> is accessible)?
>
> 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."
>>
>
> Then let's remove the alternative provision altogether. There's no sense
> in making exceptions for "on desktop (whatever that is) you're allowed to
> provide an alternative, but on mobile (whatever that is) you're not".
>
> If we do that, let's just close up the Mobile task force now and not
>> waste our time. People with disabilities deserve better.
>>
>
> Can we please stop with this melodramatic rhetoric please? Just because
> somebody disagrees with you, there's no need to switch from rational
> discussion to appeals to sentiment (and implying, consciously or not, that
> those who don't share your view are somehow trying to short-change people
> with disabilities, which frankly I find mildly offensive).
>
>
> 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