- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:31:34 +0100
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 30/06/2016 19:07, David MacDonald wrote: > ====I wrote to Loretta, who was an editor on WCAG 2 who's opinion I > greatly value with the following scenario==== > > Company X has a responsive web site. It has 2 break points based on > viewport size. A user on a mobile device gets the same site as as the > desktop, except it has a Hamburger menu icon instead of the mega menu. > > The mega menu conforms to WCAG, the Hamburger menu does not. There is no > link to the desktop version. Does this page conform to WCAG? > > Some feel that it currently passes because there is one accessibility > supported solution. Others think that it does not pass because the user > on the mobile device doesn't have a choice about which view they get, > (unless there is an accessible link to the desktop -alternative > conforming- version.) And to be clear, I (and I think most others that have dipped into this mega-discussion) fall in the latter camp which for this very specific scenario (responsive site, no desktop version link) think it does NOT pass. Not quite sure who thinks that it does... 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 Thursday, 30 June 2016 18:31:58 UTC