Re: New possible SC: All functionality available in portrait / landscape, OR not?

I think the language of this SC is intentionally quite narrow. But even
with the narrow scope it still causes a lot of trouble.
"Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display
orientation, ..."

In the understanding we distinguish "operation" from "changes in
functionality". We mean "operation" in a very broad sense. So a test for
this SC is simply to turn the device and click a few things to make sure
operation is not "restricted", rather than make sure all content is
functional and working well.

I've worked on two popular and top tier mobile apps lately where I came in
after the app was built to improve accessibility, and both companies,
independently had spent endless hours perfecting every detail of each
screen... in portrait mode. In both cases when I said "If we want to follow
the guidance of WCAG 2.1 it would be a good idea to unlock the orientation
and let it be used in landscape" . Both said "oh my, that is a long term
complete redesign consideration, it will cause us to completely rethink our
whole UI."

Naturally, the next hing to say is "well that would have been a good thing
to think about when the cement was wet in the design phase."

Perhaps I'm just unlucky in getting two of these in a row, but I'm guessing
this SC is going to send huge shock waves through the native mobile app
world. Which wouldn't be a bad thing... but it will be consequential.

Even the latest "Tasks" app from Google is locked orientation (in that case
it seems that unlocking the orientation wouldn't have much effect.)

Anyway, I'm  in favour of a separate SC proposal if we're considering all
functionality must work, understanding that making functionality work well
in both orientation will be a HUGE endeavour in the native mobile space,
more than I imagined. I'd keep this SC narrow to simply not locking
orientation rather than ensuring everything works well and build out
another one. Maybe Silver could combine them, and in a few years this will
be more part of the design process.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

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 Wed, May 1, 2019 at 3:07 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 01/05/2019 03:11, Michael Gower wrote:
> > There is no requirement in Orientation regarding the content
> > presentation beyond the simple requirement that the author not lock it
> > to an orientation. It's crucial to differentiate this requirement from
> > anything to do with how content may be altered when the reorientation
> > happens; that is not in scope.
>
> Yes, I believe the discussion here (which I jumped into with my reply)
> was about retrospectively expanding the scope of the SC, rather than
> creating a new SC. (which I believe is not really possible in general)
>
> 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
>
>