WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Conforming alternate version

for

From: Paul Rayius
Date: Jan 14, 2022 8:58AM


Hi all,
The W3C is pretty clear, when talking about alternate versions, that IF this option is chosen, the non-accessible site (or page, etc.) should be able to be navigated to *from* the accessible site (or page). Not the other way around.
That might be another thing to consider about going this route.
Best,
Paul

Paul Rayius
Vice-President of Training
CommonLook

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of L Snider
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 10:32 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Conforming alternate version

Hi Zsolt,

For me, I would talk with the client and find out why they want to do a seperate site-what is the motivation. Then I would talk to them about why I feel this is a very flawed strategy. If they wouldn't budge, then I wouldn't be the right person for this client...if the only option they see is alternate, then I can't make change. That is just me, others will have different views. One can argue well at least there is an accessible version-but for me that isn't equality or inclusion and it still makes people with disabilities 'other' (others may see it that way, I don't).

Cheers

Lisa

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:52 AM Zsolt Edelényi < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Thank you,
>
> I understand, that this is not a good strategy, but this is acceptable
> at all? Basically, the site is not usable for the users not using or
> not perceiving the accessible version.
>
> Zsolt
>
> 2022. 01. 13. 15:04 keltezéssel, L Snider írta:
> > 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-app
> roach-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
> >> > >>
> > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > >
> --
> Zsolt Edelényi
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> Mobile: +36205617144
> email: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >