Success Criterion 1.3.4 - Orientation - Level A

[JJdeGroot]

Discussion:

MATF meeting on July 3, 2024

[Source](https://www.w3.org/2024/06/26-matf-minutes.html#t04) jj: the examples of "essential" are outdated +1 to JJ that the examples in WCAG are not essential Should this be AA? I would argue A jj: what would be the situations where an orientation is essential? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#orientation is Level AA I was wrong, this is AA; @JJ shold we discuss later quintinb: how it was defined for web? why like this? quintinb: this should be an A for mobile it was added in 2.1 I think the main ides was to support web on mobile devices better AlainVagner: very common issue, could have some techniques to help developers I have to drop I'll bring it up next timne jj: issues will be created upfront jj: will think about a new organisation

Summary:

1. Essential:

• JJ: The examples of what is considered "essential" in the WCAG guidelines are outdated / not relevant in context of mobile apps
• Jamie: Agreed with JJ that the examples in WCAG are not essential.

2. Discussion:

• Quintinb: Questioned how orientation was defined for the web and why it was defined in that way.
• Joe_Humbert: Mentioned that this criterion was added in WCAG 2.1.
• Detlev: Believed the main idea was to better support web on mobile devices.
• AlainVagner: Mentioned that this is a common issue and proposed developing techniques to help developers ensure compliance.

Joe and Jamie will bring up their thoughts in next weeks' meeting due to time.

[qbalsdon]

Some websites and applications automatically set and restrict the screen to a particular display orientation and expect that users will respond by rotating their device to match, but this can create problems. Some users have their devices mounted in a fixed orientation (e.g. on the arm of a power wheelchair). Therefore, websites and applications need to support both orientations by not restricting the orientation. Changes in content or functionality due to the size of display are not covered by this criterion which is focused on restrictions of orientation. Reference

This alone is sufficient for me to agree that this should remain consistent in the Mobile CAG.

[JJdeGroot]

Related discussion: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/613

[JJdeGroot]

Related Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/androiddev/s/IdCrOT1Jur

[JJdeGroot]

Discussed in today’s meeting.

13 November 2024

[Source](https://www.w3.org/2024/11/13-matf-minutes.html#fe68) ~~~text Aash did not understand the 4 orientations concepts? Joe_Humbert No more work needed to support all 4 orientations. It is same rendering in terms of pixels JJ it is a best practice to support all 4 orientations. Illai should we propose this in conjunction with target size SC? Should we add a note to 1.3.4 about the best-practice of supporting all 4 (or more) orientations of a device? JJ we can add 4 orientation in notes, along with the target size SC, basic and advanced. +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 ACTION: Add a note to 1.3.4 about the best-practice of supporting all 4 (or more) orientations of a device ~~~

Conclusion: we are going to propose text for 1.3.4 (as is), BUT we will add a new note to say it's a best-practice to support all (4) orientations [portrait, upside down, landscape left, landscape right]