Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 28/06/2016 19:21, David MacDonald wrote:
> 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.

By using the word "Mobile" when you (in this case) mean small screen is 
inaccurate language which gives the impression that this does not apply 
to "desktop" (when in fact it does, for responsive/zoom/low vision). If 
internally we start using this sort of synecdoche, it's bound to result 
in missing the bigger picture (and in pulling in the expertise from 
other groups, just because "oh, this was just a mobile issue, not a 
low-vision one").

> Why is there a Mobile Task force if we allow a simple link to bypass the
> entire requirements that we are formulating?

I'm sure one of my first comments to the list/task force was concerning 
the unnecessarily restrictive and inaccurate naming of the task force 
and its (then) extension to WCAG.

> 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.

And that's where we fundamentally disagree, it seems.

> 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.

And once more, I'm inviting answers to this 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016AprJun/0910.html

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

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 18:43:34 UTC