Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

Hi Patrick

I don't think anyone wants to return to the top of the discussion? I am 3
days away from my paying clients on this topic, and others including
yourself are probably hoping it ends soon. It appears that at least some of
the heat was generated by me not making it sufficiently clear that the
primary concern was about Responsive sites at various break points from the
same page (same URI). So we were talking about different scenarios
wondering why the other didn't understand.

Going back to Gregg's email.
" it fails the conformance clause because the accessible alternative  is
only available from the in accessible version under certain conditions -
not at all time. "

I expect the user has control over these settings you are mentioning ... if
they click a button for optimization voluntarily for accessibility reasons
and the result failed some SC in order to augment another etc., I don't
think that anyone on the committee would assert that the result of that
setting would be a failure ... I would think of that as the "state of the
page" rather than the "view of the page". My proposal is not to change the
normative language but to clarify something that it appears core members of
WCAG 2 understand is already covered in WCAG but not explicitly
enough.Because the issue is a fairly new development on the web which
creates an environment where it matters. (Responsive)

Perhaps we can manage it like this.

"The full page includes each view of the page that is customized for
various devices, browsers, or screen sizes. Each of these views (or their
respective conforming alternate versions) would need to conform in order
for the entire page to conform. On the other hand, if a user voluntarily
chooses a setting on the page that optimizes or personalizes the state of
the page for accessibility reasons, this new state does not necessarily
need to pass every Success Criteria in order to personalize the page,
because the conforming version can be reached by undoing the setting."








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 4:08 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 30/06/2016 20:26, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> Given Loretta's response, I think we can formalize this and unify expert
>> opinion with a small amendment to the Understanding Conformance document.
>>
>> It seems this is not a change to the current WCAG 2, therefore we can
>> manage this with a sentence added to Understanding Conformance Criteria
>> 2. It doesn't need to be part of the normative document. It could read
>> like this:
>>
>> "The full page includes each view of the page that is customized for
>> various devices, browsers, or screen sizes. Each of these views would
>> need to conform in order for the entire page to conform."
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html
>>
>
> As much as I'd love to just wave this through now, a question: does "view"
> also include, in this definition, an alternative that is served from the
> same URI but has been reached by following an explicit link (for argument's
> sake, the "desktop version" link on the "mobile version", or a
> "screenreader friendly" version, or a version where the user had an in-page
> mechanism to set their preference for text size, color contrast, etc)?
> Because if so, this definition would negate the idea of a "conforming
> alternate version" (and seriously undermine any attempt at providing
> customisation options), unless you explicitly exclude those from the
> definition, a la:
>
> "The full page includes each view of the page that is customized for
>  various devices, browsers, or screen sizes. Each of these views (or their
> respective conforming alternate versions) would need to conform in order
> for the entire page to conform."
>
> which I believe would then send the entire discussion back to the start.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>