- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:13:35 +0000
- To: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Patrick Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- CC: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Adam wrote: “if a mobile user cannot access the higher res view and instead is fed a limited mobile-oriented view and that view is accessible then there is no discrimination against that user, for all users in the mobile environment are given the same accessible functionality. Consider a situation where a webmaster has two sites, one of which provides more functionality, while the other less. No violation here. Extending this logic to a situation where the server feeds content and functionality based on user preferences, so too no violation.” [AC] I disagree if the content or functionality is different and the user can’t get to something. For example, Tesco UK used to provide an ‘accessible’ version, but it didn’t include the special offers, so was deemed to discriminate. That was a different reason for having a separate version, but the principle is the same. If a responsive site reduces the functionality on the small-screen view, that isn’t just mobile, that is also people who zoom in. There is a general movement in UX circles to include everything on mobile [1] due to digital-divide issues (and general common sense once you’ve thought about it). However, I think there’s a good case for accessibility to require this because someone may have to use a small screen, or a big screen acting as a small screen! Cheers, -Alastair 1] https://karenmcgrane.com/2014/01/13/the-mobile-content-mandate/
Received on Monday, 4 July 2016 14:14:08 UTC