Skip to content

Remove incorrect "not" from 1.3.4 Orientation note #4348

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Remove incorrect "not" from 1.3.4 Orientation note #4348

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

The "not" was introduced as part of f9a2821 which rewrote the example from an early draft into simpler language, and in doing so accidentally flipped the meaning from where binary display orientation is not applicable to where content is NOT necessarily restricted to landscape or portrait orientation

Closes #4346

@patrickhlauke
Remove incorrect "not" from 1.3.4 Orientation note
75eb5b0 
The "not" was introduced as part of f9a2821 which rewrote the example from an early draft into simpler language, and in doing so accidentally flipped the meaning from `where binary display orientation is not applicable` to `where content is NOT necessarily restricted to landscape or portrait orientation`

Closes #4346
@patrickhlauke patrickhlauke added Errata Erratum to a Recommendation Normative labels Apr 18, 2025
@patrickhlauke patrickhlauke mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2025
Closed
@netlify Netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Apr 18, 2025

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 75eb5b0
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/68021441a1105d0008cccea8
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-4348--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

@mbgower mbgower added ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation Non-Normative Informative language in the specification or supporting materials and removed Errata Erratum to a Recommendation Normative labels Apr 18, 2025
@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Apr 18, 2025

TF discussion shows this is confusing. Rather than simply remove "not", we need more explanation of the behaviour in a virtual reality context.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member Author

oh, was the binary display part only related to virtual reality? I originally read that last part as being related to all examples.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member Author

the mention of virtual reality then makes less sense as an example where "orientation" is exempted. if anything, it's an extreme case where - since there is no defined portrait/landscape, but the orientation of a VR headset can be continuous - you absolutely don't want to door-slam users from orienting their head a certain way

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member Author

i'd actually say let me close this PR, as I clearly misunderstood that the where binary display orientation is not applicable is only related to the VR case, and do a new PR. wondering if the intention for the VR case was that the idea is content on the VR screens potentially always remains in a particular orientation (like, say, a HUD) relative to the headset itself, regardless of the orientation of the headset (e.g. your life bar etc remain fixed relative to the headset/your eyes, so you always see it in the same orientation, even though the VR world itself changes orientation in response to your head movement)

@patrickhlauke patrickhlauke deleted the patrickhlauke-issue4346-erratum branch April 18, 2025 16:34
@giacomo-petri
Copy link
Contributor

oh, was the binary display part only related to virtual reality? I originally read that last part as being related to all examples.

I read it the same way initially...

@giacomo-petri
Copy link
Contributor

I recommend in the new PR to distinguish between what's essential and what's not applicable/not binary.

patrickhlauke added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2025
@patrickhlauke
Remove the confusing "not necessarily limited" part of the 1.3.4 Orie…
47a20a2 
…ntation note and expand

Follow-up to #4348

Assuming that the `here content is NOT necessarily restricted to landscape or portrait orientation` relates just to the virtual reality example, this expands what was meant (at least, my understanding of it)

Closes #4346
@patrickhlauke patrickhlauke mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2025
Merged
@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member Author

Superseded by #4349

mbgower added a commit that referenced this pull request May 20, 2025
@patrickhlauke @mbgower
Remove the confusing "not necessarily limited" part of the 1.3.4 Orie…
a666a32 
…ntation note and expand (#4349)

Follow-up to #4348

Assuming that the `here content is NOT necessarily restricted to
landscape or portrait orientation` relates just to the virtual reality
example, this expands what was meant (at least, my understanding of it)

Closes #4346

---------

Co-authored-by: Mike Gower <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@giacomo-petri giacomo-petri giacomo-petri approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
ErratumRaised Potential erratum for a Recommendation Non-Normative Informative language in the specification or supporting materials
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Error in Success Criterion 1.3.4 Orientation Note
3 participants
@patrickhlauke @mbgower @giacomo-petri