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

ah - and this is always what tripped us up in WCAG 2

we have a good idea - but then think of times it should not apply.    We can just list those as exceptions because we Can’t think of them all.

So we stare at them and try to see if there is some common pattern or some common characteristic that is the reason for those exceptions. If all we can come up with is that it should apply except when it shouldn’t for some good reason… Then we know we can’t do in SC that is testable since “good” isn’t testable.

unghhhh.    We literally spent years trying to figure out how to get all of the good ideas that came up into some form that would qualify as an SC. Often we only could do part of what we wanted.

Anybody see the magic pattern for the exceptions here?

gregg

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 8:50 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Ø  Ok — so you are thinking of an SC that requires pages to be viewable without requiring the user to rotate their screens in on format or another? 
>  
> Yes, but I think we need to carefully allow for some exceptions.   For example, I believe there could be some needs such as taking pictures of checks for mobile deposit that may work better in landscape mode give the distance of the camera from the check, etc.   Some games that scroll horizontally in landscape mode would then require two sets of scrollbars in portrait mode which might make the game unplayable, etc.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group 
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> 703.637.8957 (Office) 
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>  
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:28 PM
> To: Patrick H. Lauke
> Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org; public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Principle 4 - Robust (was Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1)
>  
> Ah very good
>  
> that would definitely be a barrier to someone whose computer is locked / mounted in one position or another 
>  
> Ok — so you are thinking of an SC that requires pages to be viewable without requiring the user to rotate their screens in on format or another? 
> Sounds like a good - and new - and testable one. 
>  
> anyone see a hole in this?  
> 
> gregg
>  
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:33 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
>  
> 
> 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