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

I think we need to keep in mind the following scenario:
a website provides only a desktop version which is accessible (albeit not
ideal) for mobile viewers (has horizontal scroll which is currently legal)
that website provides absolutely not mobile version
Clearly, this is legal. No requirement currently exists to have a mobile or
responsive view.
So, the website which does provide a mobile (albeit limited functionality)
view cannot possibly be in violation of wcag 2, for he is no worse than
those who do not provide any alternative view whatsoever


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Patrick wrote:
> > But Adam's point (which I also agree with in this context) is that
> > looking purely at the "all users that are on a mobile device", they all
> > get the equivalent experience, regardless of their ability/disability.
> > So saying that a priori a reduced functionality small screen site is
> > discriminating against users with disabilities on a mobile site isn't
> > quite accurate.
>
> I guess the little alarm bell in my mind is people assuming that they are
> ok taking away functionality on mobile because you have another device to
> access the site with at other times. (The mobile = on the move fallacy.)
>
> Modernizing my previous example, say a supermarket only shows the top 2
> brands of each category (e.g. breakfast cereals) to ‘simplify the
> experience on mobile’. Most customers can login on desktop and select
> whatever they want, and perhaps they can re-order the same basket on mobile
> as well. However, someone who only has a smartphone, or someone who zooms
> in to an equivalent view cannot access a large number of the items
> available.
>
> I’m not saying that the supermarket would have to show all items in the
> same way, but they would need to provide an alternative route (e.g. they
> only show the top 2 on browse, but all are available by search, or there is
> a ‘show more’ type link under the second item.)
>
>
> > But, as already pointed out, since the small screen version can also be
> > triggered in the desktop+zoom+small browser window scenario, THAT is a
> > concern.
>
> To me they are the same (or very similar) concern. But I’m not sure where
> that kind of thing would be addressed, perhaps in the accessibility
> supported info?
>
> I suppose there could be an SC under perceivable about it, in my mind it
> is a follow up to 1.4.4 Resize Text.
>
> -Alastair
>
>