RE: Discussion: Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

That was my back pocket idea, but the mechanism is not an "unless".  Using lock is beneficial because it has specific meanings all over APIs, so if we just focus on the 2 possible things we are asking:
1. Don't lock it ever, or
2. Give me a swap mechanism

Then the criterion would be something like:

Content is not locked to a display orientation or mechanism is available to view and operate content in all display orientations, except where a locked display orientation is essential.

Note: Content is not considered locked if changing display orientation  is restricted by the platform.

The note could be in or out, but is consistent with the statement in the Screen Orientation API: " The user agent may reject all attempts to lock the screen orientation if the platform conventions do not expect applications to be able to change the screen orientation. For example, on most desktop platforms, applications can not change the screen orientation."


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Discussion: Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

On 18/10/2017 16:25, White, Jason J wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick H. Lauke [] Maybe I'm 
>> misunderstanding, or this is splitting terminology, but If there's a 
>> mechanism to change it, then it's not locked, surely?
> [Jason] According to the terminology used in the screen orientation API, even if there's a mechanism to change it, the orientation is locked. The example is that given in the GitHub issue: a button that calls the lock() method to lock the orientation when the user presses it.

But it's not locked irreversibly. The user can still unlock it, no? It's an active choice the user can take.

So does the language need to explicitly say something along the lines of "Don't lock the content orientation, unless a mechanism is available for the user to unlock it or to explicitly set/change orientation, or if a particular orientation is essential..." ?

Patrick H. Lauke | |

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2017 15:50:30 UTC