Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content

We need to distinguish between conforming alternate version and mobile view.
When you reference an "accessible version" I am assuming that this was an
alternate conforming version of the main site which was *inaccessible.*
In such a case, a mobile view with limited functionality will not suffice,
since that view is acting as an alternate version of the desktop view
(which is inaccessible and discriminates against certain users) and
therefore must contain said functionality.

When we are a speaking of a mobile view which is *not acting *as an
alternate conforming version (i.e. the desktop view is accessible) we
cannot require said desktop functionality in the mobile view.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a different website (again, no
discrimination here).

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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/
>
>