- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:03:14 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Quick reply while I'm not really online but on holiday: yes, let's. :) P On 17/07/2017 16:33, David MacDonald wrote: >> So we argued (many many moons ago...2 years ago or so on the mailing > list?) that it's not a different version in this case, since the page is > still exactly the same, it just changes > > I agree we successfully argued through it and it seemed a shoe in to > introduce some formal language to the understand > ing > conformance section of WCAG 2. But it tanked when trying to get it > through. So that's when it was moved to WCAG 2.1 > and it has been taking on water there also. > > > Should we cycle back to issue #197 in WCAG 2 and try to formalize that? > This is the ideal way to close the loop on this. > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/197 > > > > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 > > LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > > > / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > / Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy > <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:43 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org > <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>] > > Reponsive/adaptive sites on the other hand don't offer a "switch". They simply > > "are"...they adapt to whatever the environment in the client is, and dynamically > > change as the environment changes. So we argued (many many moons ago...2 > > years ago or so on the mailing list?) that it's not a different version in this case, > > since the page is still exactly the same, it just changes. > [Jason] That's a powerful argument. Note that the current definition > of "Web page" supports this position in that it is explicitly > connected to the URI. > > > > There's obviously gray area here in cases where the same URL does some > > server-side detection and, even though it's the same URL, serves different > > content depending on things like user agent...but in general I thought we agreed > > that unless there's an explicit mechanism on the page (like a "go to desktop > > version / go to mobile version") that the user can toggle to force loading of a > > specific alternative view, then the page counts as a single page, and its different > > states triggered by things the user can't easily control (e.g. screen size, user > > agent string, presence of a sensor or not) cannot be treated as separate > > alternatives. > [Jason] I agree, and it seems clear that the definition of "Web > page" ensures that this is the case. > > > ________________________________ > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged > or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual > for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not > disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the > contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any > other use of this e-mail is prohibited. > > > Thank you for your compliance. > > ________________________________ > > -- 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 Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:04:05 UTC