(unknown charset) RE: Responsive design and "loss of functionality"

Speaking personally, would it not also depend on how clearly the 
alternative  functionality is  labeled or shared?
For example, the extra steps are clear as choices,  instead of requiring 
extract contact steps, asking for an inclusive door, being told by someone 
who  does not know better that those with our disability cannot use 
computers, needing a supervisor and so forth.
As a personal example, in my on going quest to renew / replace my 
passport, i  sought to contact  my u. s. Senator's office.
I discovered that to even ask for help you must use a form..that is 
embedded, does not even appear for my combination of screen reader tools.
I get an officer staffer who says, its supposed to work with screen 
readers!
I say what screen reader in what context in what platform?
Then demonstrate for said staff member and another person hopefully with 
the section 508 office that said form is not there..at all.
So, those are allot of extra steps, even if a sort of alternative door is 
kind of there in a way.
Karen



On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, Steve Green wrote:

> Our team recently discussed this, and opinions were split. My view, based on a strict interpretation of the SCs, is that it’s a non-conformance. However, others argued that intentional removal of functionality should not be regarded as a non-conformance.
>
> Steve Green
>
> Managing Director
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
> From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2024 5:55 PM
> To: Mark Magennis <Mark.Magennis@skillsoft.com>
> Cc: w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Responsive design and "loss of functionality"
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>