W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2015

RE: Google's changes to their algorithm may have positive coga impact

From: Jamie Knight <Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:55:46 +0000
To: Anthony Doran <t.doran@texthelp.com>, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
CC: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E9010B65D6C0544D995E60A262FAE95B2A5C6F6D@BGB01XUD1002.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
Hiya,

In the BBC Mobile Accessibility Guidelines (written by the Great Henny Swan and Ian Pouncey!) we took the approach you outlined below.

"Touch targets must be large enough to touch accurately"[1]

And then in the description we reference the HIG and the google platform guidelines.

We could not entirely side step the issue around resolution independence and scaling. So for the HTML guidelines we are forced to be a little vague. We have a requirement that text is at least equivalent to 12px @ 96dip (CSS reference pixel) and that the padding that text to 0.5em for buttons is recommended.

This guideline has been pretty well received internally, the guidelines themselves are also in use in "other places" and the feedback has generally be pretty good.

Hope that helps,

Jamie + Lion


[1] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile/design/touch-target-size
________________________________________
From: Anthony Doran [t.doran@texthelp.com]
Sent: 24 April 2015 11:40
To: Steve Lee
Cc: public-cognitive-a11y-tf
Subject: Re: Google's changes to their algorithm may have positive coga impact

The form factor thing is interesting, though I am not sure there should be differentiation. It's a rabbit hole. If you are on a screen of X size, do YZ or if screen size is Y and landscape do ZY. I am leaning toward the idea that being screen size agnostic is the way forward for ease of explanation. Is there really a need to differentiate if words are chosen carefully? Surely content being large enough to be legible etc is a cross form factor thing.... Any specific cases anyone can think of that could not be generalised? Touch and gesture is on some pretty massive screens these days...

Thanks, T

On 23 April 2015 at 09:43, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>> wrote:

For example some of the ideas here are good techniques we have listed. Does this help us think of more?

Should we have techniques that depend to form factor? I think we have found the techniques are generally applicable so no need

http://www.aaron-gustafson.com/notebook/tips

Steve Lee
Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors



--
Anthony Doran
Product Manager

T: +44(0)28 9442 8105

[http://www.texthelp.com/designimages/fbemail.png]<https://www.facebook.com/Texthelpers>  [http://www.texthelp.com/designimages/twemail.png] <https://twitter.com/texthelp>   [http://www.texthelp.com/designimages/inemail.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/texthelp>   [http://www.texthelp.com/designimages/gmail.png] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Texthelp/posts>

[http://www.texthelp.com/designimages/emailsig-logo.png]<http://www.texthelp.com/>



Texthelp, Lucas Exchange, 1 Orchard Way, Greystone Road, Antrim, Northern Ireland, BT41 2RU

--
Texthelp Ltd is a limited company registered in Belfast, N. Ireland with registration number NI31186 having its registered office and principal place of business at Lucas Exchange, 1 Orchard Way, Antrim, N. Ireland, BT41 2RU.


-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------
Received on Friday, 24 April 2015 11:56:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 24 April 2015 11:56:48 UTC