W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:26:51 +0100
To: "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "Mounir Lamouri" <mounir@lamouri.fr>, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>, "Paul Bakaus" <pbakaus@zynga.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Message-ID: <op.v8wfm1tjwxe0ny@widsith.eng.oslo.osa>
OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick  
call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if  
you support or object to this - silence will be taken as not explicitly  
supporting it, and without support it isn't going to get into the draft  
charter. If it does go there, there will still be opportunities to object  
but it will be harder to squeeze in.

cheers

Chaals

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:22:30 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> Sorry for bringing this to the group this late, but it's a topic that's  
> been discussed in other places and that I believe is both useful and  
> mature enough to be ready for standardisation.
>
> Some applications are designed in such a way that they only make sense  
> in one device orientation. The archetypical example would be a game that  
> only works in landscape mode, but there are other examples. Right now  
> native apps can support this rather easily, but web apps have been stuck  
> with silly hacks such as detecting that the orientation is wrong and  
> asking the user to rotate. This further leads to trouble when the device  
> itself is used as a controller (e.g. in racing games) as this can  
> sometimes trigger an undesired orientation change mid-game — hardly a  
> user-friendly experience.
>
> Note that this is not about system-level orientation lock (which would  
> be fodder for another group) but application-level orientation.
>
> Options to address this have been discussed (amongst other places) here:
>
>     http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.webapi/browse_thread/thread/f38bb05e66c01a77#
>
> There is discussion as to whether this ought to be only an API or if it  
> should use a <meta> element (which would also give it an API since it  
> could be changed dynamically), with an overall leaning towards the  
> latter. I am rather confident that we should be able to agree on the  
> best approach relatively quickly.
>
> I will let implementers speak for themselves, but my understanding is  
> that there is interest in this feature. It is certainly a regular  
> request from developers.
>
> In previous discussions we haven't hashed out who would stand up as  
> editor and test facilitator, but I'm confident that we can find people.  
> If no one else steps up, I'll take the testing hat.
>
> WDYT?
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 13:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT