W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css-device-adapt] Wording regarding orientation.

From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 21:43:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEC208tfDBW_zq+WnE2_xGe4VbG32KvQKaCQwOdqU_0SCUaJ=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Betts <rbetts@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Ryan,

It is a good question, because you can argument for both.

- If I push a device lock on iOS I am pretty sure the app will override it,
like games.
- A normal browser wants to disable orientation change as it will interfere
with session history navigation. It is strange to push back and have the UI
change orientation.

How should this interact with the mozilla screen orientation spec? CSS is
about presentation, and the screen orientation is more about behavior as I
see it. It makes it possible to change the orientation programmatically
given a user action.

Kenneth

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Ryan Betts <rbetts@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hey Kenneth,
>
> Good point about potential conflicts between the @viewport orientation
> attribute and UA/OS restrictions. I think the way this is clarified might
> warrant more discussion, as I can think of a number of instances when I've
> been using devices locked in an orientation and the app's preference has
> over-ridden it (landscape-locked games are a great example).
>
> The question at hand: in the instance of a conflict should it be the
> @viewport attribute or the UA / OS that is allowed to narrow the scope of
> available orientation options?
>
> Where '->' expresses the direction of the orientation override, the
> options seem to be:
> a) @viewport -> UA -> OS
> b) OS -> UA -> @viewport
>
> So, if the OS says "portrait only" and @viewport says "no - landscape
> only," then (a) would result in `landscape` being honoured whereas (b)
> would result in `portrait` being honoured. Given that (b) could break the
> user experience I think that (a) would be the desired behaviour. Does that
> sound reasonable?
>
> Cheers.
> -Ryan
>
> On 2012-11-06, at 6:30 AM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <
> kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> Can we clear up this wording a bit? I like it, but I think it should be
> more clear that the UA (for instance by a manifest) or operation system can
> restrict allowed orientations further up the chain.
>
> Suggesting below.
>
> 'orientation':
>
> This descriptor is used to request that a document is displayed in
> portrait or landscape mode. For a UA/device where the orientation is
> changed upon tilting the device, an author can use this descriptor to *request
> and* inhibit the orientation change. The descriptor should be respected
> for standalone web applications, and when the document is displayed in
> fullscreen*, as long as the requested orientation is not restricted by
> the UA or device in any other way.* It is recommended that it is ignored
> for normal web navigation to avoid confusing the user.
>
> Cheers
> Kenneth
>
> --
> Intel Denmark Aps
> Langelinie Alle 35, DK-2100 Copenhagen
> CVR No. 76716919
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Denmark Aps
Langelinie Alle 35, DK-2100 Copenhagen
CVR No. 76716919

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 20:44:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT