RE: Orientation comments analysis

Following the meeting, I looked at the Screen Orientation API:

As the abstract (which I read during the meeting) suggested, the API allows the author to lock the display orientation to landscape or portrait using the screen.orientation.lock() method.

The “essential exception” in the current proposal, as I read it, does not allow the content author to lock the display orientation even at the user’s request. Thus, the code below, quoted from Example 1 in section 6 of the specification, could not be used in a Web application that conforms:

<button onclick='screen.orientation.unlock()'>
<button onclick="screen.orientation.lock('portrait')">
  Lock to portrait
<button onclick="screen.orientation.lock('landscape')">
  Lock to landscape

There should be an exception allowing the orientation to be locked by the content, as in the code above, if the user chooses to do so. Note that this is a case of author locking, as the code performing the lock() method call is in the author’s content, not in the user agent, the operating system, or in an AT.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick []
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 1:54 PM
To: WCAG <>
Subject: Orientation comments analysis

Questions for Alex and James in-line:

Comments on Orientation #70
265: concerned this doesn’t affect typical web pages today and this should be clarified in so people understand that.
235: not clear whether orientation needs to change any time or if just at load time is sufficient. Group discussed and wasn’t able to find a rationale for why it is more difficult. Additional info sought in comment.
193: question about device preferential orientation. Would some devices claim that portrait mode is “essential”?

Current SC text:
Content is not locked to a specific display orientation<>, and functionality of the content is operable in all display orientations, except where display orientation is essential<> for use of the content.

Alex, can you clarify whether the clarification to the Microsoft question you’ve received, including on the call today, addresses the question in #193? I suspect that it has since you didn’t indicate an objection to the SC moving to the editor’s draft on the call, but just checking…

Comment 265 will be addressed in the Understanding Doc.

James, comment 235 is the only outstanding one. We did discuss it today but you weren’t there to weigh in. Is this limit (that it is ok to only respond to the orientation change on load) critical to Oracle? Are there examples of where it would be a problem to make the changes on the fly?


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Thursday, 8 June 2017 19:04:59 UTC