Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Accessibility is specific to a platform. It does not matter  if laptop
version or full size tablet version is accessible or not when I am
using an iPhone or mini- tablet.
A link to a desktop version in a mobile browser may not provide a very
usable experience. Apart from UI issues I am even prompted for a
re-captcha on one site! Access to an alternative site is like a link
to "more accessible version" for Sharepoint on a laptop.
A few years ago, some SR users would find it more efficient to use
xyz.com/mobile on a laptop instead of xyz.com.
Responsive design is just a technique. One cannot require everyone to
use it. Who can stop someone who chooses to author separate  content
for different platforms / screen sizes? Practicality is a different
matter.
Mobile content if properly thought out  is surely not meant to be a
replica of laptop content. It can offer a vastly different  UI
catering to a limited or different functionality.
Not many will want to attempt to  review large statistical census-type
data tables or  complete a mortgage application or annual income tax
return on a mobile device.
With regard to the first statement above, "Accessibility is specific
to a platform": consider a screen on any platform you like. Forget
accessibility for a moment and think of a non-PWD user / designer etc.
List the functionality / usability features available to that user on
that platform.
Ensuring the same features are available  to the PWD is accessibility
for that platform. Surely one can provide a Sharepoint-like link to
"more accessible version" too!
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
Mobile: 571-344-1765



On 6/28/16, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>> 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
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2016 19:18:14 UTC