Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

>>Sure, and they should be, I wasn’t saying we give a pass at different
break points.


Currently, in WCAG2, only one breakpoint has to pass. I don't see any
proposed success criteria for 2.1 that changes that. Maybe LVTF will
propose that. I don't see it in the Gap analysis. Perhaps the proposal I
just sent to the list might be that. But as it stands there is nothing.



>>If you provide **one website** with **multiple breakpoints**, it has to
meet WCAG 2.0/2.1 at **all breakpoints**. If you swap in a different menu
at a different screensize, each ‘version’ has to meet WCAG.


This is what the entire 75 email thread to the list has been about for me,
summed up in one sentence. This is what I would like to see in WCAg 2.1
That is not in 2.0 and is not in any 2.1 workup documents I've seen in
COGA, LVTF, or MATF.

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 Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> “Often in responsive, customized components are sent to each break point.
> (Hamburger variation sent to small screen, mega menu variation of the same
> menu sent to widescreen etc...). It's really only these custom components
> that I propose we ensure are accessible.”
>
>
>
> Sure, and they should be, I wasn’t saying we give a pass at different
> break points.
>
>
>
> If you provide **one website** with **multiple breakpoints**, it has to
> meet WCAG 2.0/2.1 at **all breakpoints**. If you swap in a different menu
> at a different screensize, each ‘version’ has to meet WCAG.
>
>
>
> What I was saying was that if you have multiple **sites**, it is
> reasonable to link to an alternative site that meets WCAG.
>
>
>
> Different things.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> ​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>