Re: Conforming alternative only when compliance cannot be accomplished? (was Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop)

Hi Patrick,

My grandmother would have called that gilding the lily*, but I wouldn't
object to that language in WCAG 2.1.

JF

* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gild_the_lily


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> At a stretch, if there really is such a concern that developers will use
> "alternate accessible version" as an excuse to server sub-par experiences
> instead of making any effort to make their "mobile" version work (though as
> I mentioned repeatedly, I think the danger of the "desktop" version being
> sub-par would be highly mitigated by making sure WCAG 2.1 has appropriate
> SCs to fight any "sub-par-ishness", here's a thought (since 508 was
> mentioned at one point in this discussion): how about adding a
> non-normative Note 9 to "conforming alternate version" which borrows some
> of the wording from 1194.22 (k) and says
>
> Note 9: authors SHOULD [ed: in the actual RFC 2119 sense] only rely on
> having a "conforming alternate version" when compliance cannot be
> accomplished in any other way
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion