RE: Discussion: Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

> 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'm not sure how any part of that is about the user agent?
[Steve] I was referring to the first condition in the definition of "essential": "if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content".  I thought you were arguing that a restriction by the user agent could be considered essential, and I was pointing out that the author has no way of evaluating if the restriction was removed.

What I was trying to get to was (in plainer English): Don't lock the orientation unless there is no other way.

So rather than any assumption about orientation (portrait, landscape, diagonal, circular??), trying to say don't restrict it.

You've probably been down that route and I'm not seeing the issue, but my last attempt would be:
"Content does not restrict the orientation unless one display orientation is essential."
[Steve] That's basically what it says now.  The issue is that if an author locks it but provides or assumes a mechanism  to swap orientation, then they'd fail even though there's no inaccessibility. See the GitHub issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/509.