Re: CFC - Change to SC 2.6.2 Orientation

AGWG’ers,

As we have received one objection that initiated some useful/substantial 
discussion that indicates further clarification is needed,   this CfC is 
not agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group.

This decision will be recorded at 
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions

Thanks

Josh


Alastair Campbell wrote:
> -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

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie