- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:46:47 +0100
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 04/07/2016 17:19, Adam Solomon wrote: > 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 This goes back to the discussion on this list the other day. If the change from "desktop" (large screen) to "mobile" (small screen) is triggered purely by factors such as viewport size (as is the case with traditional responsive web design), then you can't (easily, or at all) provide a "view desktop version" toggle/link on your site. And as the small screen view can also be triggered in the UA when in fact the viewport isn't itself small, but if the user has zoom enabled, then no, the "mobile" version can't be inaccessible and claim the "desktop" version is the accessible alternate version, since the user cannot switch to it. This was hashed out the other day (I thought to a fairly stable conclusion) https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197 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 Monday, 4 July 2016 19:47:14 UTC