| CARVIEW |
Navigation Menu
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 78
Rule: Page has no orientation lock specified using CSS media queries (b33eff) #408
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.
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
Conversation
|
The implementation we have today fails SC 1.3.4 for having a media query CSS lock at all. Instead of trying to test for a method to switch, we make the assumption that such a switch doesn't exist. I think that's a fairly reasonable assumption. @annethyme what are your thoughts about this? |
|
@WilcoFiers, I think that is a fair assumption. I don't recall ever seeing such a function. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I read the understanding document, having an orientation lock on the page is a failure.
So no matter what else you do, having an orientation lock on a page is a failure in itself, and doesn't have to be in a composite rule.
The sufficient technique "Use of show/hide controls to allow access to content in different orientations." (that is not explained) I understand as applying to content that is hidden by default in a specific orientation. So if something is hidden in a specific orientation, there should be a show/hide control that makes it possible to access that content.
I can't be sure that I understand it correctly, but my understanding is quite different from the currently drafted composite rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some questions regarding the applicability and expectation
|
Part of the problems @nitedog adressed might be resolved by rewriting that rule, I think. Actually we have :
Which is incorrect for a conforming rule, as @nitedog says, it's not because its locked that is a failure.
The rest of the rule (the description and the applicability) should be rewritten that way, but does that reformulation change something regarding the accuracy of the rule ? or not at all ? :-) |
jeeyyy
added
Review call 2 weeks
| @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| id: b33eff | |||
| name: Page is not restricted to either `landscape` or `portrait` orientation using CSS transform property | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about something like "Orientation of the page is not restricted using CSS transform"?
| description: | | ||
| This rule checks that page content is not restricted to either `landscape` or `portrait` orientation using CSS transform property. | ||
| accessibility_requirements: | ||
| wcag20:1.3.4: # Orientation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"wcag20" -> "wcag21"
|
|
||
| ## Applicability | ||
|
|
||
| The rule applies to any HTML element that is [visible](#visible) and has a CSS [transform](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms/#propdef-transform) property that are applied conditionally on the [orientation](https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#orientation) [media feature](https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#media1) with a value of `landscape` or `portrait`, where the CSS [transform](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms/#propdef-transform) property has any of the below [transformation functions](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms/#transform-functions): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"that are applied" -> "that is applied"
| - [matrix](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms/#funcdef-transform-matrix) | ||
| - [matrix3d](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms-2/#funcdef-matrix3d) | ||
|
|
||
| **Note:** These specific [transformation functions](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-transforms/#transform-functions) are of interest to this rule as they have the potential to affect the [rotation](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms-2/#Rotate3dDefined) of a given element. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggest adding another note:
Note: The
rotate3d,rotateZandmatrix3dare currently part of a W3C Editor's Draft.
Labels
13 participants
Rule:
Page has no orientation lock specified using CSS media queries
Description:
This rule checks that page content is not locked to any single display orientation using CSS media queries.
Closes issue:
Guidance for the PR (pull request) creator
When creating PR:
After creating PR:
Rule,DefinitionorChore(more to the administrative side)How to Review And Approve