- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 18:04:17 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, redux@splintered.co.uk
-- Detlev Fischer testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45 Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 http://www.testkreis.de Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites Patrick H. Lauke schrieb am 18.10.2017 17:41: > On 18/10/2017 16:36, Detlev Fischer wrote: > >> In my view, the SC text should *not* refer to a mechanism if only for reason >> that it will give developers the idea that introducing controls for locking / >> unlocking on the content level might be a smart idea. KISS! > > But if the outcome of having a control that locks/unlocks/sets > orientation results in users being able to use the content, and the end > result is accessible/solves the problem that the SC wants to address, > then it should be a valid approach, no? Sure, it would be. I would just prefer to see that in the Understanding doc and not overload the SC text too much. But if others think it has to be done, so be it.. > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2017 16:04:47 UTC