Skip to content

1.3.4 Orientation: update guidance for non-web documents and software and add examples #780

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
Merged
maryjom merged 15 commits into from
Oct 24, 2025
Merged

1.3.4 Orientation: update guidance for non-web documents and software and add examples #780

maryjom merged 15 commits into from
Oct 24, 2025

Conversation

@maryjom
Copy link
Contributor

@maryjom maryjom commented Sep 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Per Issues #779 and #787 and alignment with the latest EN 301 549 proposed updates:

  • Split guidance between a non-web document and non-web software section
  • Remove Note 1.
  • Add in examples of non-web documents and non-web software that would be scoped out.
  • Add in a scoping limitation rather than use "essential exception".

@maryjom
1.3.4 Orientation - update Note 1 to remove info about having a sensor
6c115af 
Per Issue #779 for alignment with the latest EN 301 549 draft:
- Remove "or that has no sensor to detect or change the orientation" from Note 1.
- Make note 1 only apply to non-web software - not non-web documents.
@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Sep 12, 2025 •
edited
Loading

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2ict ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit deaeeb2
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/wcag2ict/deploys/68fb6b45583aee0008bee443
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-780--wcag2ict.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 project configuration.

bruce-usab
bruce-usab requested changes Sep 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bruce-usab bruce-usab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I strongly prefer our current wording. Lack of hardware support seems like the device just doesn't meet the requirement.

@bruce-usab bruce-usab self-requested a review September 18, 2025 14:16
bruce-usab
bruce-usab previously approved these changes Sep 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bruce-usab bruce-usab left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Apologies, I was confused about the proposed changed. I think it's a good edit to drop reference to a sensor.

1.3.4 for PR780 diff

@maryjom
Change non-web software scoping to devices supporting content display…
4280802 
…ed in different orientations

This change tries to incorporate the essence/intent of what Gregg proposed in the 18 September meeting which was:

"this SC applies to non-web software if it is limited to only 'non-web software that is intended to be run on devices that supports software in more than one orientation"
maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
@maryjom
Add the same note to non-web document section
2a8886e 
The same essential exception also applies to non-web documents displayed on fixed-in-place displays.
maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 24, 2025
View reviewed changes
@maryjom
Copy link
Contributor Author

maryjom commented Sep 25, 2025

The latest V19 draft of the EN 301 549 received on Monday, 22 Sept. has the following notes and examples for non-web software:

NOTE: Non-web software that is only used on hardware that supports a single display orientation, or where it is an application that is run only on hardware that is physically fixed in one orientation (e.g. a building directory) is covered under the essential exception and therefore does not need to provide support for orientation changes.

EXAMPLES: Calculators and watches would not be expected to support two orientations.  Nor would building directory software written to ONLY be used on tablet devices bolted to the wall, all in the same orientation, be expected to support two orientations.

Is this OK as-is or are adjustments needed? If this language is preferable to what is currently in the PR, I can update the PR to match.

maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 25, 2025
View reviewed changes
@maryjom maryjom mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2025
Closed
maryjom
maryjom commented Sep 30, 2025
View reviewed changes
@bruce-usab bruce-usab linked an issue Oct 2, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
SC 1.3.4 is problematic for some content appearing only on stationary hardware #787
Closed
@bruce-usab bruce-usab mentioned this pull request Oct 2, 2025
Closed
@bruce-usab bruce-usab linked an issue Oct 2, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
1.3.4 - Consider removing "or that has no sensor to detect or change the orientation" from Note 1 #779
Closed
bruce-usab
bruce-usab previously approved these changes Oct 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bruce-usab bruce-usab left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me. Diff preview

@maryjom
Incorporate the latest EN 301 549 updates
8b5093d 
This changes the precondition, note and examples for 1.3.4 Orientation to match what is in the latest EN 301 549.
maryjom
maryjom commented Oct 2, 2025
View reviewed changes
@daniel-montalvo
Copy link
Contributor

daniel-montalvo commented Oct 9, 2025

@maryjom

I am not comfortable with this rewording, and would ask for us to follow WCAG2ICT patterns. This is not much about what we are saying here, but about how we are saying it.

  • We should write this in a way that is consistent with WCAG2ICT patterns. We should start by "This applies directly as written [...]" and then if there are exceptions, enumerate them in notes as we've been doing for the other SCs.
  • We don't have the concept of "precondition" in WCAG2ICT. We are introducing it here for the first time without defining it. Some parts of our audience may be familiar with the two documents and may be able to infer its meaning, but I think it's also plausible that some of the audience for WCAG2ICT do not really understand it.

daniel-montalvo
daniel-montalvo previously requested changes Oct 9, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See my previous comment.

@maryjom
Copy link
Contributor Author

maryjom commented Oct 9, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@daniel-montalvo Apologies, I didn't notice your comment on this PR prior to the meeting where the group approved the PR for merging and I don't recall you bringing this up. Should we re-discuss this next week on 16 October? Do you have proposed language to use instead?

@daniel-montalvo
Copy link
Contributor

daniel-montalvo commented Oct 10, 2025

@maryjom

I was taking a look at the scripts to try to see why the examples for software didn't show up and I think that's when this was discussed.

Yes, I think we should follow WCAG2ICT patterns.

I'll try to come up with alternative wording for this before the meeting for us to discuss next Thursday.

@daniel-montalvo
Copy link
Contributor

daniel-montalvo commented Oct 15, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@maryjom

Alternative wording for this that would match WCAG2ICT patterns and writing style is in #799 .

See Rich diff

This was referenced Oct 15, 2025
Closed
Merged
bruce-usab
bruce-usab previously approved these changes Oct 22, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@bruce-usab bruce-usab left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this version well enough, and am flexible regarding the resolution of the issue.

@maryjom
Update PR using agreed text from the 23 October meeting
cca82df 
One editorial change was made to address Daniel's comment to use the phrase "examples include but are not limited to" so that it leaves examples more open-ended.
@maryjom maryjom changed the title 1.3.4 Orientation - update Note 1 to remove info about having a sensor 1.3.4 Orientation - update guidance for non-web documents and software and add examples Oct 23, 2025
@maryjom
Copy link
Contributor Author

maryjom commented Oct 23, 2025

Updated this PR with the text we reached resolution on in the 23 October meeting.

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo dismissed their stale review October 24, 2025 10:33

Discussed and agreed upon in 23 Oct meeting

@maryjom maryjom merged commit 1726bad into main Oct 24, 2025
5 checks passed
github-actions bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2025
@maryjom @github-actions
Merge pull request #780 from w3c/mjm-fix-issue-779
f5c6f93 
SHA: 1726bad
Reason: push, by maryjom

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@maryjom maryjom changed the title 1.3.4 Orientation - update guidance for non-web documents and software and add examples 1.3.4 Orientation: update guidance for non-web documents and software and add examples Oct 28, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo daniel-montalvo approved these changes

@pday1 pday1 pday1 approved these changes

@bruce-usab bruce-usab bruce-usab left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

5 participants

@maryjom @daniel-montalvo @bruce-usab @pday1