Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 28/06/2016 20:43, David MacDonald wrote:
> Patrick says:
>>"If a site provides different views/layouts depending on factors
> outside of the user's control, such as screen size, device type, user
> agent, etc, each of these views/layouts needs to be accessible, or offer
> a mechanism to switch to an accessible alternative version (as per
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef)"
>
> I think I gave two viable examples.
> 1) Low vision users who use a screen reader will have a degraded
> experience (see below for more details).
> 2) Blind users will have an unnecessarily cluttered experience for
> example trying to use VO on iOS to navigate a mega menu for desktop, and
> swiping through hundreds of link and having to rotate their rotor for
> every new type of element they want to find
>
> There may be other scenarios such as Alan raised, but to me these two
> are enough...
>
> When I say "People with disabilities deserve better", I am certainly
> saying just that. I'm not saying anyone else doesn't care about people
> with disabilities. I have no idea what is in someone else's head. But I
> will say that it is objectively a worse experience experience to try to
> use a desktop site on a mobile device. Otherwise Corporations would not
> spend $200,000 to develop their "small screen" strategy. Why would we
> want to create that kind of a hole in WCAG 2.1?

Because you can't close the loophole only for "mobile". Which is why the 
language I propose above is a first stab at generalising the idea beyond 
"mobile" to different views/layouts/etc.

> I think I have to remind us that we are opening up WCAG to clean up
> accessibility problems. We should not be settling on legal loopholes
> that force people with disabilities to use a complicated clunky "large
> screen" interface on their mobile device.

If it's "complicated and clunky" in the sense that it fails 
accessibility requirements, those will be flagged as failures. If 
they're complicated and clunky on a "mobile", they'll be complicated and 
clunky on a "desktop". If there are no SCs that can currently 
objectively quantify/qualify "clunky" and "complicated" in terms of SCs, 
then that's an issue to tackle with more SCs (which can't all come from 
"Mobile TF", but need to involve a much larger set of opinions/expertise 
from low vision, COGA, etc), which then apply to both "mobile" and 
"desktop".

> I think Jason had the fundamental question right. The small screen view
> has a different functionality from the large screen view, so I'm
> suggestiing we add a note 8  to the definitkon o Conforming alternative.
>
> conforming alternate version
>
>      1.
>
>         conforms at the designated level, and
>
>      2.
>
>         provides all of the same information and functionality
>         <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#functiondef> in the same human
>         language <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#human-langdef>, and
>
>     /.../
>
>     /<add> Note 8: /If pages that are optimized for small screen have
>     different functionality from pages optimized for large screen, such
>     as a changed menu mechanism, or less content, or simplified
>     interface, etc. the two views do not have the same functionality and
>     therefore cannot be used as conforming alternatives for each
>     other.</add>

Essentially, stripping out the "small screen" part, this says (to 
paraphrase): "if two views do not have the same functionality/content, 
they can't count as being 'alternatives'", which is the same as point 2.

Perhaps better would be to add a note that clarifies that different 
views/layouts triggered based on screen size, device type, user
  agent, etc  also count as being "alternatives" ONLY IF they satisfy 
the fundamental requirement laid out in 1, 2, 3, 4 (conform at 
designated level, provide same information/functionality, are 
up-to-date, have a way to switch)

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 20:04:41 UTC