WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Conforming alternate version

for

From: Paul Rayius
Date: Jan 13, 2022 7:51AM

As others have mentioned, I would also highly recommend making the site accessible and not relying on a separate, accessible version. While it's true that WCAG 2.0 (and 2.1) allow for this it really should be used as a "last resort" option.

As per the W3C's documentation in "Understanding Conformance," (https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html), they state: "Note that providing an alternate version is a fallback option for conformance to WCAG and the preferred method of conformance is to make all content directly accessible."

I hope that helps to inform decision-makers and other stakeholders.

Best,
Paul

Paul Rayius
Vice-President of Training
CommonLook

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of L Snider
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 9:05 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Conforming alternate version

Hi Zsolt,

I also had a flashback to 2003 with the alternate accessible site. I would highly recommend not doing this for a number of reasons. We should be able to make one site fairly accessible for many people. We can never make one site accessible for 100% of users, because each one of us has different needs. Technology changes every year, and sometimes in months-Look at voice control, and how it has improved hugely in just 4 years and now it is a major tech to check with...

Having two sites 'others' those of us with disabilities, and in 2022 this would not be a strategy I recommend. For me, this is similar to overlays, and I won't get into that rat's nest but if you aren't aware of that, do go on Twitter and search overlays accessibility.

Plus, in my personal view, it opens you up to a lawsuit. It may not apply to the country you reside in, but it is an important successful lawsuit in my view:
https://www.levelaccess.com/settlement-shows-limits-separate-equal-approach-digital-accessibility/

Cheers

L:sa



On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 4:57 AM Zsolt Edelényi < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Thank you Mark and Glen for your answer!
>
> Zsolt
>
> 2022. 01. 12. 16:44 keltezéssel, glen walker írta:
> > The "Conforming Alternate Version" is spelled out pretty well at the
> > link you mentioned:
> >
> > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version
> >
> > In this case, it looks like non-conforming version (the main
> > website?)
> has
> > a link to the conforming version via the image link (the first link
> > on
> the
> > page) that looks like a yellow circle with three embedded black circles.
> > The image has appropriate alt text leading the user to the "barrier free"
> > version.
> >
> > However, both the link and the image are tab stops. The link does
> > not
> have
> > a focus indicator but the image does, so technically the link would
> > fail the "accessibility-supported mechanism" requirement in #4.1
> > because it doesn't have a focus indicator. But that's easy to fix.
> > There's no need to have tabindex=0 on the image since it's contained
> > in the link and if
> the
> > focus indicator is fixed, it would satisfy a "conforming alternate
> version"
> > (assuming the website it's linked to is actually conforming and
> > provides all the same information as the original site and is kept up to date).
> >
> > Personally, I think it's a lot more work to maintain two websites
> > and
> make
> > sure they stay in sync when changes are made rather than the work
> required
> > to make the original website conformant.
> > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > >
> --
> Zsolt Edelényi
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> Mobile: +36205617144
> email: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >