You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform
This definition has served quite well as a way of providing a loophole while forcing authors and assessors to carefully consider whether something truly meets an idea of being essential. Is there really no other way of doing this that would conform?
However, some criteria hint at a concept that seems to encompass a "reality check" for practical application:
Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.
This exception for usage and meaning (from Reflow) does not use the word "essential". Instead, it uses the word "requires". I don't recall an explicit discussion to avoid the use of "essential". My sense is this phrase was trying to address a concept looser than "this cannot be done in any other way". Instead, it is attempting to address situations where for practical usage, there is what amounts to a fundamental design need. The nuance of Reflow, and the many considerations (as discussed in the updated Understanding document) speak to this potential need for something a bit softer than essential.
Recent discussion for the wording of Orientation and the examples given suggests this "reality check" concept was probably closer to the consideration the working group was trying to address.
a bank check, a piano application, slides for a projector or television
As stated in the discussion:
The whole "essential" concept (from the normative wording) is a vague loophole, and even the examples that were dreamt up at the time are arguably not essential in and of themselves (for instance, it's perfectly possible to make a piano playing interface that adapts to portrait aspect ratio)
Each of the examples provides slightly different considerations to a concept of fundamental.
Technical limitations
For a bank cheque, historically there may have been a technical restriction; in order to validate the cheque and the information on it, the resolution may have only been sufficient in landscape mode, given the physical dimensions of a cheque (i.e., the details of the cheque taken by the camera in portrait mode, where 2/3 of the information in the image would be irrelevant, would be insufficient). Such a limit may still exist for photos take with older devices (this is conjecture). Such a technical limitation, if it exists, seems close to meeting the "essential" definition.
Convention
A slide designed to be displayed on a conventional projector or television will have landscape dimensions. Obviously it is optimally displayed in landscape orientation. However, it can be displayed in portrait mode, despite this convention. Typically one of two presentations could occur: 1) It could render larger than the viewport width, so that only some of it would be visible without panning (and so potentially fail the Reflow requirement); 2) its size could be reduced so that it was entirely visible within the width of the viewport, typically showing up at about 1/3 its intended size. Where a mobile device is showing something intended to be viewed on a computer monitor, even in landscape mode it is already more difficult to read; making it 3 times smaller to fit in portrait mode may render it difficult to discern for many users.
However, there is a way by which the slide can fit within the the viewport and meet the SC. An operable thumbnail representation of the slide (or image) can be provided to fit the width of any screen. Even if it is not fully legible at that resolution, it hints at the content and it can serve as a mechanism to trigger a full resolution view (which itself would require scrolling).
This two-step solution meets the requirement of the SC while also allowing for the practical (if non-optimal) use of content in a reduced form factor. To me, a "convention" argument can be too low a bar, but it is the basis on which a lot of good design takes place.
Usability
A piano keyboard emulator is intended to replicate the experience of playing physical piano keys with one's fingers. It is possible (though not desirable) to slightly reduce the key size, but each key must remain independently operable . A mobile device allows the playing of the standard 88-keys of physical keyboard by allowing the user to scroll left and right to reposition the keys in the viewport. One can argue that the ability of a user is already reduced in landscape mode on such a device. Practically, a piano keyboard emulator in portrait mode on a small mobile device limits usability to only a few keys. When one can no longer play even a simple chord or arpeggio, It is arguably no longer an emulation of piano keyboard. So while it isn't essential that the emulator work only in landscape mode, it seems reasonable to allow an exception in such a case.
This discussion is intended to explore the problems and potential gains for considering allowances for fundamental/practical usage.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
The definition of essential states:
This definition has served quite well as a way of providing a loophole while forcing authors and assessors to carefully consider whether something truly meets an idea of being essential. Is there really no other way of doing this that would conform?
However, some criteria hint at a concept that seems to encompass a "reality check" for practical application:
This exception for usage and meaning (from Reflow) does not use the word "essential". Instead, it uses the word "requires". I don't recall an explicit discussion to avoid the use of "essential". My sense is this phrase was trying to address a concept looser than "this cannot be done in any other way". Instead, it is attempting to address situations where for practical usage, there is what amounts to a fundamental design need. The nuance of Reflow, and the many considerations (as discussed in the updated Understanding document) speak to this potential need for something a bit softer than essential.
Recent discussion for the wording of Orientation and the examples given suggests this "reality check" concept was probably closer to the consideration the working group was trying to address.
As stated in the discussion:
Each of the examples provides slightly different considerations to a concept of fundamental.
Technical limitations
For a bank cheque, historically there may have been a technical restriction; in order to validate the cheque and the information on it, the resolution may have only been sufficient in landscape mode, given the physical dimensions of a cheque (i.e., the details of the cheque taken by the camera in portrait mode, where 2/3 of the information in the image would be irrelevant, would be insufficient). Such a limit may still exist for photos take with older devices (this is conjecture). Such a technical limitation, if it exists, seems close to meeting the "essential" definition.
Convention
A slide designed to be displayed on a conventional projector or television will have landscape dimensions. Obviously it is optimally displayed in landscape orientation. However, it can be displayed in portrait mode, despite this convention. Typically one of two presentations could occur: 1) It could render larger than the viewport width, so that only some of it would be visible without panning (and so potentially fail the Reflow requirement); 2) its size could be reduced so that it was entirely visible within the width of the viewport, typically showing up at about 1/3 its intended size. Where a mobile device is showing something intended to be viewed on a computer monitor, even in landscape mode it is already more difficult to read; making it 3 times smaller to fit in portrait mode may render it difficult to discern for many users.
However, there is a way by which the slide can fit within the the viewport and meet the SC. An operable thumbnail representation of the slide (or image) can be provided to fit the width of any screen. Even if it is not fully legible at that resolution, it hints at the content and it can serve as a mechanism to trigger a full resolution view (which itself would require scrolling).
This two-step solution meets the requirement of the SC while also allowing for the practical (if non-optimal) use of content in a reduced form factor. To me, a "convention" argument can be too low a bar, but it is the basis on which a lot of good design takes place.
Usability
A piano keyboard emulator is intended to replicate the experience of playing physical piano keys with one's fingers. It is possible (though not desirable) to slightly reduce the key size, but each key must remain independently operable . A mobile device allows the playing of the standard 88-keys of physical keyboard by allowing the user to scroll left and right to reposition the keys in the viewport. One can argue that the ability of a user is already reduced in landscape mode on such a device. Practically, a piano keyboard emulator in portrait mode on a small mobile device limits usability to only a few keys. When one can no longer play even a simple chord or arpeggio, It is arguably no longer an emulation of piano keyboard. So while it isn't essential that the emulator work only in landscape mode, it seems reasonable to allow an exception in such a case.
This discussion is intended to explore the problems and potential gains for considering allowances for fundamental/practical usage.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions