Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

I think if we get so theoretical about the web that we can't even say the
word "Mobile", even in our internal discussions then we risk living in an
academic bubble.

Why is there a Mobile Task force if we allow a simple link to bypass the
entire requirements that we are formulating? This is not "melodramatic
rhetoric" in my mind it is a very real question. It's like buying a $400
lock for your front door, and leaving the back door open and the light on.

I think anyone who has been around for a long time knows that I don't mind
loosing an argument I wrong about. I concede more often than I press in.
But honestly, I feel this is a crazy discussion, about not requiring ANY
mobile view to follow ANY WCAG SCs, given that we ripped open WCAG 2 to
update it to the modern web.

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 1:44 PM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:

> Patrick,
>
>
>
> Yes, the distinction of “mobile” has always been hard to define, even when
> we were starting out with the Mobile Accessibility Task Force, I had
> question does this also mean tablets, tablets with keyboards, 10inch
> screens, etc.
>
> Are my tablets only mobile devices if I have cellular service and when I
> sit down in my house and use wifi are they no longer “mobile” devices?
>
>
>
> Companies are creating “mobile” or “tablet” or “small glass/medium glass”
> apps. If we consider them as
>
> you state “instead qualify it more specifically as being "touchscreen
> accessibility", "small-screen
>
> accessibility", we find the same issues. These smaller screens often have
> totally different user interface and content design with a lot less
> clutter.
>
>
>
> So I think my premise of the differences with “desktop” (which can be
> touch also) designed web and smaller screen native apps and web still is
> valid.
>
>
>
> Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:19 PM
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
> *Subject: *Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop
>
>
>
> On 28/06/2016 18:05, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>
> > +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.
>
>
>
> One of the main problems I see with this whole rhetoric is: you're still
>
> talking about "mobile vs desktop" as if those were two nicely separate,
>
> distinct silos. They're not. We need to move away from treating
>
> something as "mobile accessibility" and instead qualify it more
>
> specifically as being "touchscreen accessibility", "small-screen
>
> accessibility", etc. Already there are plenty of device in the market
>
> today (such as 2-in-1 laptops) which blur the line, but still require
>
> SCs and Guidelines that apply to new input/display/etc methods available.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>