Re: CfC - Orientation (2nd try)

On 20/11/2017 22:10, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends November 22st at 5:00pm Boston time.
> 
> The Working Group has discussed a change to the Orientation SC, as 
> proposed in this survey 
> (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/resoling_orientation/results) 
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2Fresoling_orientation%2Fresults)&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9de0747ce34b4a52b97308d52de7eb57%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636465396470480819&sdata=QNU3oV%2F7CHphXPOJP1me5FAbLeAlj0F1taiBdQFDmO0%3D&reserved=0> 
> and discussed on the November 20 call 
> (https://www.w3.org/2017/11/20-ag-minutes.html#item02).
> 
> The new proposed SC test is:
> 
> “Content does not restrict its view and operation to a single display 
> orientation, such as portrait or landscape, unless a specific display 
> orientation is essential.”

+1 provided there are good examples in the understanding about when a 
specific display orientation can be claimed to be essential by its very 
nature, and not simply "it would be possible, with additional work, for 
the author to also stack/reorganise the content to work in another 
orientation, but they just designed it with one orientation in mind and 
then locked down the page content to only stick to one particular 
orientation / prevent the UA from even swapping to a different 
orientation altogether".

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 Tuesday, 21 November 2017 09:01:17 UTC