nope Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 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 Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > Ah very good > > that would definitely be a barrier to someone whose computer is locked / > mounted in one position or another > > Ok — so you are thinking of an SC that requires pages to be viewable > without requiring the user to rotate their screens in on format or another? > Sounds like a good - and new - and testable one. > > anyone see a hole in this? > > *gregg* > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> > wrote: > > > Many sites currently do this sort of thing in a very primitive way (they > check the browser window/viewport width/height and, if it's not in the > "correct" ratio, they simply put a big roadblock in front of the content > until the user changes the ratio/turns the device. As noted earlier in this > thread, there are now more robust standards/techniques coming (screen > orientation API, CSS directives that lock a view into a particular > orientation, directives in progressive web app JSON manifests that > explicitly set a locked orientation). And again, WCAG currently doesn't > have the tools to flag this as a problem. > > P > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2016 02:35:27 UTC