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

Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

From: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:57:55 -0800
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Message-ID: <CB4DB1A4.14FEF%pbakaus@zynga.com>
Zynga wholeheartedly supports screen orientation locking!

Am 30.01.12 14:26 schrieb "Charles McCathieNevile" unter
<chaals@opera.com>:

>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 ő 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/f3
>>8bb05e66c01a77#
>>
>> 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 franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg kan litt norsk
>http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:58:32 GMT

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