Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>*Jason] In that case the two sites are presumably not providing the same
functionality, and thus neither would qualify under the WCAG 2.0 definition
as a “conforming alternate version” of the other.*

I would be satisfied with formalizing this position in 2.1 Jason. I think
functionality is pretty ambiguous now given the definition of
Functionality. I would be satisfied with an example of a small screen view
and a large screen view not being alternatives for one another under WCAG
because the menu functions differently, different cognitive load,  etc...

The mobile site issue wasn't on our radars when we wrote the WCAG, most of
the language for this alternate conforming version was completed before
2005.

"functionality

<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#processdef>
​"​ <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#processdef>
processes <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#processdef> and outcomes
achievable through user action
​"​



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 1:42 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* ALAN SMITH [mailto:alands289@gmail.com]
>
> Another thing to consider is that from my experience in the business
> world, mobile specific apps have far less functionality, information and
> clutter  and a link to a desktop website will give them a totally different
> experience with far too much informational differences. From a cognitive
> standpoint it will be overwhelming what they will have to go through to get
> to the same places and same information or same functionality as they would
> on the mobile specific app.
>
> *[Jason] In that case the two sites are presumably not providing the same
> functionality, and thus neither would qualify under the WCAG 2.0 definition
> as a “conforming alternate version” of the other.*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>