RE: Responsive design and "loss of functionality"

I would agree, except that the search feature is not the same on the main search page. It searches all media, not just books, which could make searching much more difficult unless there is a way to constrain it to only searching for books. If that was the case, then I would say it’s conformant.

Steve

From: Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 6:05 PM
To: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>; Mark Magennis <mark.magennis@skillsoft.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Responsive design and "loss of functionality"

Hi Mark,

Until recently I would have answered yes, it would be a failure if you had to navigate to another page to be able to access the same functionality which was removed on the original page when a smaller viewport was applied.

However, it was recently pointed out to me that I had been not taking into account this part of the Understanding doco for the Reflow SC<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/reflow.html> (which I've read so many times but somehow this didn't click):

"Visibility and availability of content

How much of the content is visible may change at different scales. For example, navigation menus that are fully visible in the desktop layout are often collapsed into fewer items, or even into a single menu button (the 'hamburger' icon pattern) so they take up less screen space.

The Success Criterion is met as long as all content and functionality are still fully available - either directly, or revealed via accessible controls, or accessible via direct links." (emphasis added)

So, with the example you provided, if there was a direct link to the main search page from the book search page and the link was available on all viewports, then it would pass reflow.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Juliette

On 6/5/2024 9:59:41 AM, Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Mark,

I have been wondering similarly over this question, but with regard to 5.2.1 and an alternative conforming version.

Functionality is defined as:

"processes and outcomes achievable through user action."

Processes is further defined as:

"A series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity"

To what extent and strictness "functionality" and "processes" are construed is a question I have pondered?

Is it acceptable to have extra steps, more clicks etc on an alternative version?

The same question probably applies to your responsiveness question. The wording in the glossary would seem to indicate that loss of functionality would include any significant change to processes i.e the steps needed to accomplish an activity.

On Wednesday, June 5, 2024, Mark Magennis <Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com<mailto:Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com>> wrote:
>
> My take on "loss of functionality" under 1.4.4 and 1.4.10 would be that if responsive design collapses functionality into, say, a hamburger menu, then there is no loss of functionality because it's still there, it just requires opening a menu to get to it. I assume there would be wide agreement on this but I may be wrong.
> But how about this scenario? A media site has a search page that searches within all media and a separate search page in the books area of the site that only searches within books. On the books search page, the search filtering functionality disappears at lower screen widths but it is still available on the main search page at the lower width. Is this loss of functionality on the page but not on the site a "loss of functionality"?
> Mark
>
> Mark Magennis (he)
>
> Senior Accessibility Specialist
>
> Skillsoft
>
> www.skillsoft.com<http://www.skillsoft.com>
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=18fe945c0fe5e8e5&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1>
>
>