- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:25:25 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is mostly from my email above of June 28: Accessibility is specific to a platform. It does not matter if laptop version or full size tablet version is accessible or not when I am using an iPhone or mini- tablet. Mobile content if properly thought out is surely not meant to be a replica of laptop content. It can offer a vastly different UI catering to a limited or different functionality. Not many will want to attempt to review large statistical census-type data tables or complete a mortgage application or annual income tax return on a mobile device. With regard to the first statement above, "Accessibility is specific to a platform": consider a screen on any platform you like. Forget accessibility for a moment and think of a non-PWD user / designer etc. List the functionality / usability features available to that user on that platform. Ensuring the same features are available to the PWD equates to accessibility for that platform. One can certify that a particular URI is accessible on X platform. It does not mean that it is accessible and meets WCAG 2 on another. A link to a desktop version in a mobile browser may not provide a very usable experience. And sometimes it may not be a problem depending on content and design. AT support for accessibility may vary across platforms too. So I do not believe that a conforming alternative on platformX can be claimed as a reason for meeting WCAG2 on platform Y. Responsive design is just a technique. One cannot require everyone to use it just as one cannot require one to use ARIA or technique SCR26 / H2 or C6 whatever to meet WCAG2. Comparing desktop and mobile may sometimes be akin to comparing a watermelon to an apple (no pun intended!). Thanks, Sailesh Panchang
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 19:25:55 UTC