RE: Steve's concerns on Orientation

Hi David,

I’m not sure how this could end up being a restriction without the author using an API or CSS to do it explicitly.  In the absence of that, it’s just a different viewport width and height, so if that breaks the content the author has bigger problems.

In the case of other freakish reasons where that might be true, it seems like the user agent would be to blame.

Steve

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 5:49 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Steve's concerns on Orientation

I can live with Steve's wording.

I'm a little concerned that there could be situations where an author did not restrict the content in any specific intentional way, but nevertheless it doesn't work in say, landscape orientation.

Is there a distinction between "restrict" from "plain old doesn't work on orientation x"?


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:55 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:


From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:17 AM
Current CFC language:

  *   A mechanism is available to view and operate content in portrait and landscape orientation, except where a specific display orientation is essential.

The issue that Steve is raising is that this creates testing problems for content developed for or even just tested with devices that don’t do this orientation changing. We tried to cover this with “essential” by indicating that “Document that "essential" includes limitations of hardware, implementation (e.g. kiosk, seatback displays)” but we shouldn’t have done that because that changes essential from having to do with the content and putting it on the devices/UA.

Steve’s suggestion is as follows:

  *   Content does not restrict its view and operation to only portrait or landscape orientation, unless a specific display orientation is essential.
[Jason] Perhaps changing “only” to “either” would clarify that the proposal isn’t requiring content to be operable in orientations other than portrait and landscape.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________