- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:56:49 +0100
- To: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 27/06/2016 20:28, ALAN SMITH wrote: > Patrick, > > > > I don’t quite understand the difference between what you say: > > > > “It's not about how a site/app reacts when > orientation/viewport is changed, but rather that > > it actually works in those orientations/changes.” > > > > So, if a site works in landscape but is rotated to portrait and it now > introduces a different menu structure let’s say with hamburger menus but > they add more menu options in portrait than they had in landscape. > > > > Is this “how it works” or “if it works”. Giving a concrete example, which is what started the whole thing off: in native apps, as well as in modern browsers (using CSS, progressive web app manifest, etc) you can explicitly say that a site/app only works in portrait or landscape mode. Even if the device is tilted, the view won't change (and everything will simply stay as it is, without adjusting to the new roration). But critically, say a user relies on having their device always in landscape mode - it's fixed like that to their wheelchair, for instance - and they fire up an app / web app / website that declares to only work in portrait mode...then they're snookered and can't use it. Sure, they can (if they're able to) tilt their head 90 degrees, but that's not really the idea of a "robust" site/app. Beyond that there could be scenarios where even if the site does not actively lock the aspect ratio, it simply displays a "please rotate your device" on screen when the device is in the "wrong" orientation. Currently, Mobile TF proposed a new SC under Principle 3 - Understandable - https://github.com/w3c/Mobile-A11y-Extension/issues/2 but to me that's not the correct place for it. I would see it as a measure of "robustness" that a site/app works in different viewport sizes/orientations, but could also be persuaded at a stretch that this could fall under Principle 1 - Perceivable. 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 Monday, 27 June 2016 19:57:20 UTC