RE: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop



From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 8:58 AM

I'm thinking, (hoping) that we are coming to agreement that we can all live with on this even though we may have some differences.

I expect there will be many responsive sites going forward. My experience is the mega menu turns to hamburger, and other widgets like expand/collapse change, the rest of the content stays the same. We want to ensure that those things that change for the mobile don't force the user to go looking for a link to a site that has been optimized for a faster connection, more powerful computer, bigger screen etc.

I've incorporated Patrick's language language into Note 8, and provided an example to ensure that the these specific concerns are covered.

Here it is:

·        *Note 8: Sometimes specifically optimized views are delivered to the user agent based on screen size, device type, etc. A WCAG conforming view linked from such an optimized view could only be considered a conforming alternative if it has the same functionality as this optimized view. For example, a large screen view with a mega menu, more content, and more complicated interface would not be a conforming alternative to a view optimized for small screen because the two have different functionality.

[Jason] That’s fine, except that I’ve never encountered the term “mega menu” before and I’m surely not alone. Do you have a more explanatory substitute?


________________________________

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.

________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2016 13:20:33 UTC