Re: Conforming alternative for mobile should not be Desktop

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