Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

On 29/06/2016 01:14, David MacDonald wrote:
> And she is forced to use a heavy link filled desktop view with
> VoiceOver, turning on and off the rotor to chose different elements as
> her swipe down action.

If the site is so atrocious, it will also be atrocious to "desktop" 
users on a desktop/laptop. Bear in mind that the desktop version also 
needs to conform to WCAG, so things like 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks also apply.

Additionally: even "desktop" sites often use things like dropdown menus 
etc for navigation, which - if the site passes WCAG 2.0, which it must 
to be counted as an "accessible alternate version" - will be coded 
correctly to expands/collapse, expose the correct role/state, and so 
on...so it's not necessarily always this dichotomy of "nice slick mobile 
version vs clunky and complex desktop version".

In any case, it seems (?) that the addition of a note to the definiton 
of "accessible alternate version" will sufficiently reassure you that 
developers won't see the "link to desktop" as an exoneration in these cases?

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 Wednesday, 29 June 2016 08:10:29 UTC