Discussion: Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

No wet fish, but... Essential is definitely not applicable for a user agent restriction.  Since it's under user agent control, the first condition wouldn't make any sense and could not be evaluated.

I interpret "supported by the user agent" more like Jason described, but I do see your point.  On the flip side, if you don't somehow cover it, then authors need to presume a user agent that handles all orientations exists, which is not a certainty and is not even an accessibility issue.

The alternate was to use mechanism and have this as an exception.  Would a rewording of that be more clear?

A mechanism is available to view and operate content in all display orientations except where a restricted display orientation is essential or controlled by the user agent.

This, I think, improves the essential exception while being similar to other "user agent control" exceptions.

I have one more idea in my back pocket if you don't like that one... ;)

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

-1

Apologies because I missed the call and perhaps some of the rational, but the proposal:
"Content is operable in all display orientations supported by the user agent, except where display orientation is essential".

This version assumes the author knows what the user agent is, and what it is capable of.

I thought this approach had come up a few times before and been rejected because that assumption is not always (or ever?) true?

At the risk of causing SteveRep to want to hit me round the face with a wet fish, would it be a simple case for 'essential'?


"Content is operable in all display orientations unless one display orientation is essential."
Or 'content is not locked to...', I'm sure it has been through a few versions but I don't think referencing the user-agent will work.

Cheers,

-Alastair