Re: Query regarding 1.3.4

 +1 to Alan, John and Juliette

During discussions of SC 1.3.4 - Orientation, I don't ever remember the
working group bringing up the idea that loading up correctly in either
portrait or landscape orientation was all that was required to pass this
success criterion.  From my recollection of those meetings and email
threads, the success criterion was all about not forcing users to have to
be able to change orientation ever to get content or functionality to work
correctly. I was one of many included in those discussions, so if others
remember differently, please correct me.

Think of all of the ways this rule could play out in reality.  Think of the
benefit to people with disabilities who would be disproportionately
negatively impacted by the absence of this rule.  In my opinion, it's not
just a Usability issue, it's an Accessibility issue.

Here's one hypothetical scenario:

A web user with partial paralysis begins the meticulous process of filling
out a business license application using a switch to interact with a tablet
mounted to a wheelchair.  In the middle of filling the application out, a
caregiver enters the scene and moves the mounted device when delivering
care.  The caregiver leaves the room without fixing the device orientation
back to where it was when she came into the room to help her client. The
change in device orientation causes business license application content to
not scroll, making it impossible for the user with partial paralysis to
complete the application without assistance from someone else.  This is
both an accessibility and a privacy problem.

I'm sure others can draw up other hypotheticals that involve an intervening
force changing the orientation of a device mid-session.  If you can't move
the device back into the original orientation for reasons associated with a
disability, SC 1.3.4 - Orientation helps you out!

Brooks Newton

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 11:19 AM Juliette Alexandria <
mcshanejuliette@gmail.com> wrote:

> All WCAG SC apply to every page in every state. If that state was achieved
> by the device initially beginning in one orientation and then changing to
> another, if still has to conform to all SC.
>
> From WCAG: <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#cc2>
> "NOTE
>
> New A full page includes each variation of the page that is automatically
> presented by the page for various screen sizes (e.g. variations in a
> responsive Web page). Each of these variations needs to conform (or needs
> to have a conforming alternate version) in order for the entire page to
> conform."
>
> On 11/8/2022 9:05:19 AM, Bristow, Alan <alan.bristow@elections.ca> wrote:
> > How does that selectively affect disabled users?
>
> I don't think it does.
>
> Perhaps that means this is not an issue for the originator of the
> question, but whether it selectively affects disabled users or not does not
> seem relevant; 1.3.4 still says, I think, that for anyone--able-bodied or
> not--the device should not fail following a change in orientation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan
> . . . . - . . - - -
> Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
> Web Developer / Développeur Web
> Elections Canada / Élections Canada
> alan.bristow@elections.ca
> ________________________________________
> From: David Woolley
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 11:48 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Query regarding 1.3.4
>
> Ce message a été envoyé par un expéditeur externe. Veuillez faire preuve
> de prudence et ne pas cliquer sur les liens ou ouvrir les pièces jointes à
> moins de reconnaître l'expéditeur et de savoir que le contenu est sûr.
>
> This message was sent from an external sender. Please exercise caution and
> do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> On 08/11/2022 16:41, Bristow, Alan wrote:
> > Operation of a device designed to be used in either orientation
> includes, it seems reasonable to conclude, changing that orientation.
>
> How does that selectively affect disabled users?
>
>
>
>