RE: Orientation comments analysis

> [Jason] This is interesting – I think Andrew’s amendment of the proposal in the CfC is clearer. With this proposal, buttons in the Web application’s UI for locking/unlocking the display orientation could be taken as one of the possible mechanisms, so presumably the concern that I’ve raised here is addressed. Personalization would also appear to be covered. I could certainly live with this as a proposal, based on what has been discussed so far.

Yes, this would use the WCAG 2.0 definition for mechanism which covers anything provided in the content and anything relied upon from the user agent, which in most cases for unlocked content just means turning the screen.

I have to disagree that the current proposal is clearer because it doesn’t start by stating the actual user requirement to be able to view content in the fixed orientation of their choosing.  Instead it presumes rotation is automatic and states the usual method for not blocking it, which I’d argue fails SC requirement #3:

“3. Describe the specific condition required to meet the criteria, not the method to address the criteria.”

It also states a negative condition instead of a positive one (which is not in the 2.1 SC requirements but I think used to be?).  Either way, I think it’s clearer to have a positive statement

Last but not least, the current wording does not consider the case where the device simply does not have the capability to rotate orientation.  We think of this as completely legacy, but I think it’s important for wider applicability (especially beyond web content).  Besides, it doesn’t actual create a user problem.

Steve

From: Repsher, Stephen J
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:57 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Orientation comments analysis

Forgot to also handle when the OS fixes orientation or otherwise makes rotation impossible… simple adjustment:

A mechanism is available to view content in all display orientations without loss of essential content or functionality, except where the display orientation is fixed by the user agent or is essential for usage or meaning.

Steve

From: Repsher, Stephen J
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 6:10 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Orientation comments analysis

You would need to say something like “or is initiated by user request” for correct grammar.  But couldn’t just turning the screen be construed as a user request in many situations?

I admittedly missed a lot of the discussion on this one so correct me if I’m wrong, but if the motivator behind this one is folks who have a fixed orientation mechanically, then isn’t the actual desire to lock everything in that orientation?  I’m wondering if this is being approached backwards, and we’re sort of going against a setting in mobile platforms to be able to lock orientation (e.g. via the Control Center in iOS).

Jason’s example drives me to think we’re really just requiring a mechanism be available to view content in either orientation, so the content doesn’t create a physical rotation requirement.  So how about a simplification like:

A mechanism is available to view content in all display orientations without loss of essential content or functionality, except where the display orientation is essential for usage or meaning.

Mechanisms for webpages might be turning the screen, reloading the page, or clicking Jason’s example button.

Steve

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 4:48 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Orientation comments analysis

Jason, ok I get what you are driving at. So how about:

Content is not locked to a specific display orientation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fdisplay-orientation.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5dd8ee8f053a4ef5711808d4aea12bcb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636325454633238038&sdata=f%2FVaw9sMlkrZYqxvFpv5FjZfqyIuZD9GUhT0qkumVig%3D&reserved=0>, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fessential.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5dd8ee8f053a4ef5711808d4aea12bcb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636325454633238038&sdata=Exo5iswJ%2BhqGyE6lJq9O%2Bm0cEl4i69myuiWp3KmFV2U%3D&reserved=0> for use of the content or by user request.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 15:04
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Orientation comments analysis

Following the meeting, I looked at the Screen Orientation API: https://www.w3.org/TR/screen-orientation/


As the abstract (which I read during the meeting) suggested, the API allows the author to lock the display orientation to landscape or portrait using the screen.orientation.lock() method.

The “essential exception” in the current proposal, as I read it, does not allow the content author to lock the display orientation even at the user’s request. Thus, the code below, quoted from Example 1 in section 6 of the specification, could not be used in a Web application that conforms:

<button onclick='screen.orientation.unlock()'>
  Unlock
</button>
<button onclick="screen.orientation.lock('portrait')">
  Lock to portrait
</button>
<button onclick="screen.orientation.lock('landscape')">
  Lock to landscape
</button>

There should be an exception allowing the orientation to be locked by the content, as in the code above, if the user chooses to do so. Note that this is a case of author locking, as the code performing the lock() method call is in the author’s content, not in the user agent, the operating system, or in an AT.


From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 1:54 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Orientation comments analysis

Questions for Alex and James in-line:

Comments on Orientation #70
265: concerned this doesn’t affect typical web pages today and this should be clarified in so people understand that.
235: not clear whether orientation needs to change any time or if just at load time is sufficient. Group discussed and wasn’t able to find a rationale for why it is more difficult. Additional info sought in comment.
193: question about device preferential orientation. Would some devices claim that portrait mode is “essential”?

Current SC text:
Content is not locked to a specific display orientation<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fdisplay-orientation.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5dd8ee8f053a4ef5711808d4aea12bcb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636325454633238038&sdata=f%2FVaw9sMlkrZYqxvFpv5FjZfqyIuZD9GUhT0qkumVig%3D&reserved=0>, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Forientation_ISSUE-70%2Fguidelines%2Fterms%2F21%2Fessential.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5dd8ee8f053a4ef5711808d4aea12bcb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636325454633238038&sdata=Exo5iswJ%2BhqGyE6lJq9O%2Bm0cEl4i69myuiWp3KmFV2U%3D&reserved=0> for use of the content.

Alex, can you clarify whether the clarification to the Microsoft question you’ve received, including on the call today, addresses the question in #193? I suspect that it has since you didn’t indicate an objection to the SC moving to the editor’s draft on the call, but just checking…

Comment 265 will be addressed in the Understanding Doc.

James, comment 235 is the only outstanding one. We did discuss it today but you weren’t there to weigh in. Is this limit (that it is ok to only respond to the orientation change on load) critical to Oracle? Are there examples of where it would be a problem to make the changes on the fly?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5dd8ee8f053a4ef5711808d4aea12bcb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636325454633238038&sdata=W09LKZODXMfIxP0SpqCP%2FFkmwPSj%2FnuD6UH9mA991jM%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________