Re: Query regarding 1.3.4

OK, so let me get this straight.  Is anyone in this thread saying that
abandoning the user task and refreshing the page is a viable reason for
passing SC 1.3.4 - Orientation
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/orientation.html>  in the
half-finished business license application scenario I presented?  If so,
really?

How many success criteria do we have in WCAG 2.x that exist primarily to
prevent users with disabilities from abandoning tasks that may be
technically possible, but not probable due to user disabilities?   I know
I'm asking a lot of questions.  This interpretation of SC 1.3.4  having an
abandon/refresh exception doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of many
other success criteria in WCAG 2.x.

Maybe what's missing here is the recognition that multiple other success
criteria will be failed in this scenario, so we don't have to pin the
failure on SC 1.3.4?  Like Alan, I'm having a difficult time justifying why
the user scenario I wrote earlier in the thread wouldn't be a hard fail of
SC 1.3.4, even if a refresh of the page fixed the content or functionality
in the given display orientation.

Are instructions provided to the user to simply abandon their task and
refresh that page to get the page working right?  If they aren't provided,
is that a failure of SC 3.3.2 - Labels or Instructions
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/labels-or-instructions.html>?
Is it reasonable to expect that a user will just intuitively know that
refreshing the page is the fix to the problem?  Can you expect the user to
make that destructive choice when they've put a lot of time and energy into
what they've already input or interacted with on the page?

Isn't the disproportionate time and energy  required to complete tasks for
people with certain disabilities the reason for supporting successful
outcomes that are probable, not just theoretically possible? How long
should it take for the user to reach that conclusion to throw away page
progress by refreshing if they are never explicitly directed to do so by
the content author?

Would this orientation scenario also be a failure of SC 3.3.9 - Redundant
Entry (WCAG 2.2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#redundant-entry>, in the
case of a half-filled out application that must be erased and filled out
again after refresh?

I'm not saying I have all of the answers here - I'm just trying to ask the
right questions to get closer to consensus.

Brooks Newton

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 12:49 PM Bristow, Alan <Alan.Bristow@elections.ca>
wrote:

> Thank you Giacomo​.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan
> . . . . -   . . - - -
> Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
> Web Developer / Développeur Web
> Elections Canada / Élections Canada
> alan.bristow@elections.ca
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Giacomo Petri <giacomopetri89@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2022 1:07 PM
> *To:* Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting)
> *Cc:* John Foliot; Kevin Prince; Ramakrishnan Subramanian;
> 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.
>
>
> I assumed per 1.3.4 that both orientations work on page load but not while
> switching from portrait to landscape and vice versa.
> Especially after reading
>
> While the content may work perfectly in both and only fail when
>> transitioning from one to the other, I see nothing that indicates working
>> in the initial orientation is all that is needed. By definition orientation
>> is subject to change, and so it seems pretty clear the intention is content
>> works in either orientation, including after a change in orientation.
>>
>
> from Alan.
>
> This case happens more frequently than expected, especially for animated
> elements such as sliders or carousels.
>
> That's the reason of my feedback and why I've opened
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2771
>
>>