Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1)

I'll note as well that WCAG 2.1 is expanding to address more than just
static content (out of necessity), and so we are also presumably
re-thinking some of our earlier assumptions (such as the new barrier you
noted Gregg, which Patrick confirmed) - it's not "Content" per-se, but
rather a user-condition imposed upon the end user by the content author,
with (presumably) no work-around, or a difficult work-around (like tilting
your head 90 degrees).

(This distinction between page content versus 'environmental variables' [*]
like this is also what leads me to lean towards a 4.x.x SC here, because
locking down screen orientation introduces brittleness, and is not "Robust"
in the larger definition of that term)

JF
* Probably needs a better term

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 28/06/2016 21:02, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>> help me understand here.
>>
>> I don’t see anything much about locking orientation that is an access
>> problem.
>>
>> if you lock it vertical —  then I can’t use the horizontal trick to make
>> the screen larger — (which I always use) — but instead have to turn to
>> zoom.
>>
>> But for many, turning the screen sideways zooms it a bit but not enough
>> so they have to zoom anyway.    So it isnt a  show stopper like some
>> things.  It just makes us introduce horizontal scrolling for some more
>> people.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a barrier I am missing?
>>
>
> Yes, situations where a user can't turn the screen sideways (for instance,
> because they use a tablet that's solidly mounted in one particular
> orientation and attached to their powered wheelchair)...but I see you
> mention it later in your email:
>
> One I can think of is a person With a physical disability who has his
>> tablet mounted in one direction, and if he goes to a page that forces
>> him in other orientation then he can’t turn it.
>>
>
>
> But it seems to me that
>> this is already true for many apps
>>
>
> and they are causing a problem, which WCAG currently doesn't have any SCs
> to tackle it with.
>
> and I haven’t seen any websites that
>> only work in landscape.
>>
>
> They're out there. For a sampling, see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=
> "please+turn+your+device"
>
> 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
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion