RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

+1 to adding the note. What specific clarifications would you suggest, Jason?

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:05 PM
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
Subject: RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

 

 

 

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3:44 PM

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  <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#functiondef> functionality in the same  <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#human-langdef> human language, 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>

 

[Jason] Arguably this example illustrates the requirement without changing it, which I expect is what was intended. “Less information” and “simplified interface” (if some functionality is missing from the simpler version) would both qualify as different content and function. A different menu mechanism might, or might not qualify depending on what the differences precisely are.

 

Thus the question is whether we have a disagreement here about what changes are sufficient to prevent a version from qualifying as a “conforming alternate version” for WCAG purposes. I would suggest clarifying the list of differences in the note.

 

 

  _____  

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.

  _____