RE: Query regarding 1.3.4

With respect – it’s not locked into either orientation  (it doesn’t restrict its view) but there is a bug for everyone when it changes between orientations. That affects everybody. Different countries define the failure vs best practice vs bug.

In both failure criterion there is an explicit step to open the content in landscape, and one to open it in portrait. If the criteria were supposed to include the scenario we have here then it would say move between portrait and landscape. (PS, I don’t like it but if that’s how your regulator defines compliance then that’s the literal reading you have to take)

Either way fix the bug.

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 11:06 am
To: Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Query regarding 1.3.4

Hi Kevin,

> It doesn't fail the failure criteria of 1.3.4 because it allows changes in orientation

Respectfully, it *IS* a failure of SC 1.3.4, because according to Ramakrishnan, there *IS* "... loss of content or functionality" (their actual words). The SC does not speak to how that may happen (opening the page in either view, or when the view changes due to device rotation), only that the content MUST render and function correctly in both views. Again, the normative text clearly states:

"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."
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#orientation


SC 1.3.4 is NOT about change of orientation, it is about ensuring content works in both views.

As others have noted, a tablet could be physically locked into landscape mode (because it is mounted on a motorized scooter for example), but if page content is 'locked' into only rendering in Portrait mode, it fails.

JF


Kevin Prince  
Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant
 
  
Foster Moore 
A Teranet Company 
  
 
E kevin.prince@fostermoore.com 
Christchurch 
fostermoore.com 
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 4:28 PM Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>> wrote:
Strictly speaking it's a bug that needs fixing for all. It doesn't fail the failure criteria of 1.3.4 because it allows changes in orientation - it just handles them badly.

Kevin
Kevin Prince
Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant

Foster Moore
A Teranet Company

E kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
Christchurch
fostermoore.com<http://www.fostermoore.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com<mailto:ram.eict2013@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 November 2022 5:06 am
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Query regarding 1.3.4

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.


Dear Members,
I would like to know whether loss of content or functionality that happens when the device orientation is changed would be A Failure of Success criteria 1.3.4? or is it a best practice?
Some Examples of loss of content /functionality that I refer during the change of orientation may include content truncation / overlapping / unable to scroll etc.


--

Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan


--
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"