Skip to content
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

Use case (website visitor): rotate/reset map bearing #114

Open
AmeliaBR opened this issue Aug 10, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Use case (website visitor): rotate/reset map bearing #114

AmeliaBR opened this issue Aug 10, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
discussion: use case a possible use case: should it be included? what should it say? status: editor's draft there's a draft section in the report that corresponds to this discussion

Comments

@AmeliaBR
Copy link
Member

This issue is for discussion of the use case “Rotate a map, or reset the bearing”, its examples & list of required capabilities.

This is a web-visitor use case: end users may want to rotate the map to make it easier for them to understand, regardless of whether the website author explicitly added this capability.

Related to #84, which is the authoring use case (the ability for the website author to set the bearing of the map, whether to implement a custom rotation control or to set a specific rotation for editorial reasons).

@AmeliaBR AmeliaBR added discussion: use case a possible use case: should it be included? what should it say? status: editor's draft there's a draft section in the report that corresponds to this discussion labels Aug 10, 2019
@prushforth
Copy link
Member

Should we mention the associated need to provide a bearing for the initial map state, and to reflect the bearing to a map property as it may change?

@prushforth
Copy link
Member

OK nevermind, I see that the two are being treated separately.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussion: use case a possible use case: should it be included? what should it say? status: editor's draft there's a draft section in the report that corresponds to this discussion
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants