- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:00:34 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 20/11/2017 22:10, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > Call For Consensus — ends November 22st at 5:00pm Boston time. > > The Working Group has discussed a change to the Orientation SC, as > proposed in this survey > (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/resoling_orientation/results) > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fresoling_orientation%2Fresults)&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9de0747ce34b4a52b97308d52de7eb57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636465396470480819&sdata=QNU3oV%2F7CHphXPOJP1me5FAbLeAlj0F1taiBdQFDmO0%3D&reserved=0> > and discussed on the November 20 call > (https://www.w3.org/2017/11/20-ag-minutes.html#item02). > > The new proposed SC test is: > > “Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display > orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display > orientation is essential.” +1 provided there are good examples in the understanding about when a specific display orientation can be claimed to be essential by its very nature, and not simply "it would be possible, with additional work, for the author to also stack/reorganise the content to work in another orientation, but they just designed it with one orientation in mind and then locked down the page content to only stick to one particular orientation / prevent the UA from even swapping to a different orientation altogether". 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
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 09:01:17 UTC