Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Here are the reasons provided in the Understanding document for allowing a
conforming alternative.
​ Conforming alternative are considered for reasons other than "we don't
want to make our mobile site accessible"... that type of reason is not
given.

​===Start of quote===​
​-​
Sometimes, pages use technologies that are not yet accessibility
supported...
​
The alternate version requirement allows authors to include such Web pages
in their Web site by providing an accessible alternative page in
technologies that are accessibility supported.
​-​
For a variety of reasons, it may not be possible to modify some content on
a Web page. For instance,
​-​
It may be critical to include an exact visual copy of a document for legal
or historical reasons
​-​
The Web page may be included in a site but the site owner may not have the
legal rights to modify the content on the original page
​-​
The company may not legally be able to remove, or alter in any way,
something that was previously posted.
​-​
An author may not have permission to alter a document from another
department, agency, or company
​-​

​-​
Sometimes, the best experience for users with certain types of disabilities
is provided by tailoring a Web page specifically to accommodate that
disability. I

Many sites which are committed to accessibility have large quantities of
legacy documents. Some organizations, especially governmental bodies, give
precedence to traditional print-oriented processes. Even as these
organizations have adapted to Internet publishing and embraced the need for
accessible formats, they still retain a paper mindset and often insist on
formats designed for hard copy as the "primary" version (even for documents
that are only ever "published" electronically). Although the Working Group
feels these approaches should be deprecated it does not feel they can be
forbidden so long as accessible versions are readily available.

A concern when permitting Web pages that do not satisfy the Success
Criteria is that people with disabilities will encounter these
non-conforming pages, not be able to access their content, and not be able
to find the “conforming alternate version." A key part of the Alternate
Versions provision, therefore, is the ability to find the conforming page
(the alternate version) from the non-conforming page when it is
encountered. The conformance requirement that permits alternate pages,
therefore, also requires a way for users to find the accessible version
among the alternate versions.

Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for
conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all
content directly accessible.
​ ===End of Quote===​

https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head

​

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 Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:33 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> >>So even if there are "more content", "additional interface elements"
> etc in the alternate version, it counts as alternate version under the
> current definition/note 2.
>
> I'm not sure. That was my original assumption. However, it says multiple
> pages, it doesn't say "more complicated, bandwidth heavy, complicated menu,
> etc..."
>
> But I agree it is a concern worth addressing.  I know I've been on the
> fence about failing messed up hamburger menus. I usually say "fixing it
> lowers the risk of complaint"
>
> However, Dr. Jason White, who was an editor of WCAG 2, for whom I have
> great respect, made the point in response to Alan's concern that
> different characteristics in the mobile view constitute different
> functionality, and therefore are already covered in WCAG2.
>
> I'm trying to choose the path of least change to the existing standard
> WCAG2 for V2.1, and if it can be interpreted that way by a past editor, I
> am willing to go with that. That is what I worked with all yesterday, to
> try to work it up by clarification of the definition of functionality,
> rather than make a change for 2.1. I think Note 2 can be amended...
>
> Our conforming alternative allowance in WCAG2 predates responsive design,
> breakpoints, and mobile versions of sites. We have a new reality now, and I
> think it needs addressing. In WCAG 2, it was intended to be SPECIFICALLY
> designed as an alternative. How about this amendment to Note 2?
>
> > Note 2: The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page
> with the original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of
> multiple pages). <add>However, it should not force the user to navigate to
> a view optimized for another platform.</add>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conforming-alt-versions-head
>
>
>
> 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 Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk
> > wrote:
>
>> On 29/06/2016 14:51, David MacDonald wrote:
>>
>>> *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 complicated
>>> menu, more content, or additional interface elements would not be a
>>> conforming alternative to a view optimized for small screen because the
>>> two have different functionality.
>>>
>>
>> There's a danger here of directly contradicting Note 2 (though the note
>> seems to be aimed at the "other way", going from a complex to a simplified
>> version)
>>
>> "The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the
>> original (e.g., the conforming alternate version may consist of multiple
>> pages)."
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conforming-alternate-versiondef
>>
>> So even if there are "more content", "additional interface elements" etc
>> in the alternate version, it counts as alternate version under the current
>> definition/note 2.
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>