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

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