Re: Query regarding 1.3.4

Juliette writes:

> I am less convinced that WCAG actually requires opening the page in one
orientation and then changing the orientation and testing the page


Correct. That is a test procedure, and not a requirement. What is
*required* is the normative text of the SC: *"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."*

Simplified, to meet this SC content must render correctly in either
portrait or landscape mode - that there is nothing that 'breaks' in either
mode (unless the content meets one of the listed exceptions). The SC says
nothing about "changing" mode, although reason and logic would suggest that
the fastest and easiest way to test this SC is to load content in one mode,
and then rotate the device a quarter-turn (or otherwise change the 'view')
to verify that content renders correctly in both views. However, the act of
'rotating' the device is not part of, nor was ever intended to be part of
the SC (Success Criteria are also device agnostic).

The non-normative "Understanding" document states: "*The intent of this
Success Criterion is to ensure that content displays in the orientation
(portrait or landscape) preferred by the user."*

*> ...*what the WCAG folks thought they were saying, but actually didn't.


No, we knew what we were asking/writing/saying. *WCAG Success Criteria only
mandates outcomes*.

Originally the thinking behind this SC came from the Mobile Accessibility
Task Force, but as we worked on WCAG 2.1 it became clear that "mobile" was
a distraction, that it was about screen orientation and not
device/form-factor; it was just that prior to mobile devices this was not
really a thing: mobile popularized the idea of Portrait and Landscape view
modes. I'm sure however that many of us have also seen large-screen
monitors mounted in a "portrait" mode as well, and at least Windows will
allow the desktop view to also 'rotate' the screen view (I recall doing
that with a laptop device in the mid-2000's, pre iPhone).

Nonetheless, we have (had) also seen many "mobile" applications or content
targeted to mobile that was 'locking-in' the page content to a single view,
which was causing issues for some users, that we continued with this SC.

JF

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 3:24 PM Juliette Alexandria <
mcshanejuliette@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/8/2022 11:48:23 AM, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
> wrote:
> On 08/11/2022 17:40, Brooks Newton wrote:
> > 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.
>
> As I understand it the question is not about the site forcing a change
> of orientation, but the user forcing a change. I'm working on the
> assumption that the site does load, initially, in both orientations.
>
> Under benefits, the more detailed information, two examples are given of
> benefits. One is that the user lacks the physical ability to change the
> orientation, and the other is that they find font sizes easier to cope
> with in landscape. In the first case there is no possibility of the
> user trying to force a change. I guess you could suggest that in the
> second, the user entered the site in portrait and decided they had to go
> to landscape to be able to read it, but I'd argue that someone in that
> situation would always try to use landscape.
>
>
> Try framing this same question through the lens of the Reflow criteria.
> Reflow requires testing pages at a 320px/256px viewport - but the intention
> of the SC was not for mobile users on small screens. The intention of that
> SC was for users who browse with significant magnification, and it requires
> that users do not need to scroll in more than 1 direction to view content,
> all other SC are met when in reflow, and no functionality is removed from
> the page. Elements can transform into different structures (footer links
> presented as a list on desktop but in a disclosure on smaller viewports)
> but they still have to be available.
>
> Brooks' example of a person with a caregiver who doesn't return the device
> to the orientation that the user needs is a good one, but just ONE of the
> many reasons why someone may open a page in one orientation and then need
> to switch to a different orientation.  I can imagine a dozen more, and they
> are not edge cases.
>
> After re-reading the SC and the understanding doco, then reading through this
> GitHub issue <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/391>, I am less
> convinced that WCAG actually requires opening the page in one orientation
> and then changing the orientation and testing the page, though I believe
> this is what *should* be required and perhaps what the WCAG folks thought
> they were saying, but actually didn't.
>


-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"