Re: New possible SC: All functionality available in portrait / landscape, OR not?

Developing mobile apps to render well in multiple configurations is not
difficult. My response to such teams would be:

"Allow it to look perfect in one orientation, and ensure it's functional in
another."

Any Native Mobile app that cannot, relatively trivially, be allowed to work
in both orientations has been programmed lazily. This is a one sprint
endeavor for any application that I have worked on.

NOW, designing a "Portrait and Landscape Experience" unique to those
layouts, that could be a challenge. But that's not what we're asking. Teams
that care about this should have considered Accessibility Earlier in their
development process.

Every SC has ripple effects when you care about the design implications of
those effects that can immensely complicate things for those who care about
those implications. Color Contrast is an excellent example of this. Teams
that care about this implications should consider Accessibility in earlier
phases of development. But, unlocking the configuration, attaching a
ScrollView to your main content, and just letting your view readjust to the
viewport change is trivial for any non-stupidly programmed application.

Chris

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:30 AM David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> I think the language of this SC is intentionally quite narrow. But even
> with the narrow scope it still causes a lot of trouble.
> "Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display
> orientation, ..."
>
> In the understanding we distinguish "operation" from "changes in
> functionality". We mean "operation" in a very broad sense. So a test for
> this SC is simply to turn the device and click a few things to make sure
> operation is not "restricted", rather than make sure all content is
> functional and working well.
>
> I've worked on two popular and top tier mobile apps lately where I came in
> after the app was built to improve accessibility, and both companies,
> independently had spent endless hours perfecting every detail of each
> screen... in portrait mode. In both cases when I said "If we want to follow
> the guidance of WCAG 2.1 it would be a good idea to unlock the orientation
> and let it be used in landscape" . Both said "oh my, that is a long term
> complete redesign consideration, it will cause us to completely rethink our
> whole UI."
>
> Naturally, the next hing to say is "well that would have been a good thing
> to think about when the cement was wet in the design phase."
>
> Perhaps I'm just unlucky in getting two of these in a row, but I'm
> guessing this SC is going to send huge shock waves through the native
> mobile app world. Which wouldn't be a bad thing... but it will be
> consequential.
>
> Even the latest "Tasks" app from Google is locked orientation (in that
> case it seems that unlocking the orientation wouldn't have much effect.)
>
> Anyway, I'm  in favour of a separate SC proposal if we're considering all
> functionality must work, understanding that making functionality work well
> in both orientation will be a HUGE endeavour in the native mobile space,
> more than I imagined. I'd keep this SC narrow to simply not locking
> orientation rather than ensuring everything works well and build out
> another one. Maybe Silver could combine them, and in a few years this will
> be more part of the design process.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613-806-9005
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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 Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:07 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01/05/2019 03:11, Michael Gower wrote:
>> > There is no requirement in Orientation regarding the content
>> > presentation beyond the simple requirement that the author not lock it
>> > to an orientation. It's crucial to differentiate this requirement from
>> > anything to do with how content may be altered when the reorientation
>> > happens; that is not in scope.
>>
>> Yes, I believe the discussion here (which I jumped into with my reply)
>> was about retrospectively expanding the scope of the SC, rather than
>> creating a new SC. (which I believe is not really possible in general)
>>
>> P
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>