Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

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

David, where is it saying that? *IF* providing a link to the desktop
version makes the mobile experience *more* accessible, then it should not
be rejected out of hand. If the desktop solution doesn't also meet the
(new) SC we bring forward targeted towards (mobile) smaller screens, then
it doesn't meet the requirement, and so linking to the "desktop" version
does not address the issues and does not change the conformance statement.

This also illustrates why I push back on using the Success and Failure
Techniques as the definitive way of tracking conformance: state the
requirements clearly, and leave open the possibility that a whole new
technique meets the functional requirements of the Success Criteria. In
other words, judge on the outcomes, and stop trying to impose specific
patterns.

JF

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:21 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
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.
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion