Re: CFC: Target Size and Target Size (no exception) SC

OOPS I meant “targets”  not “links” in the first line. 


this isnt about low vision.  The target size was about physical disability and the inability to hit the links.    
(But even for low vision — the exact same logic applies)

what is the logic of making some of the targets larger so they can be hit — but not the rest?    is the person only supposed to use part of the page?   -  excluding the links?  

and what is wrong with the person with a physical disability just using “zoom with wrap” that will enlarge BOTH the targets covered and the links?

***  WHO DOES THIS SC BENEFIT? *** 
what page can they use now that they could not use before? 


those are the questions. 


g 

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>




> On May 28, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
> 
> The issue is  that as written -
>>>  the SC requires that some parts of the page be larger -because they would not be useable if they were not — but says that all of the links can be smaller (too small for these same users).   
>>> 
>>> What is the logic that the links on a page are not important but the buttons  or  Nav links are?
> 
> 
> The logic is not centered around whether the links are or are not important to make larger and therefore more accessible, but since there were identified issues with making the inline text links larger the SC was written to exempt those links. If the choice is all or nothing then we would have nothing, so the working group decided to include this exemption. It was discussed in the meetings and is reflected in the meeting minutes.
> 
> If there is a resolution to this — I missed it.  Can you point me to it? 
> 
> The discussion in the meetings resulted in a survey (https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/results#xq4 <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/results#xq4>) where this was discussed, and it has been discussed at length in the github issue (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60>) - this resulted in a version of the SC text that in the last call we felt was ready for a CFC and recorded a resolution to that effect (https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04 <https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04>). 
> 
> And in answer to your other question -  
>        I respectfully do not think we should live with adding restrictions to page authorship that have no benefit --  because the page overall would not in the end be useable by the group the SC is intended to operate.     That is, to force designers to do something on one part of a page to benefit a group that cannot use the rest of the page (ie. writing SC that only make parts of the page accessible but omits links — is not logical — nor helpful.  It feels like tokenism.  Which we should watch out for. 
> 
> There are ways that the links can be accessed, but with difficulty. Low vision users can employ a variety of techniques to access the links, from user style sheet changes to the zooming of text, so I think that we are talking about the page being more accessible, even if it isn’t as accessible as possible.
> 
> AWK
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 26, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> It isn’t strange, it is a CFC. CFC’s are the time where the question is if you have "concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 'not being able to live with' this decision”. As the chairs and staff contact felt that the questions raised had already been discussed, we approved the CFC.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> AWK
>> 
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>> Adobe 
>> 
>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C84338aae31cd441a993508d4a5d4024e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636315777437017751&sdata=709JWAptHNFC3YSlgYGv5WGiXhRYCs5yOfgFcP6a2iE%3D&reserved=0>
>> 
>> From: Gregg Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>>
>> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 22:18
>> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>> Subject: Re: CFC: Target Size and Target Size (no exception) SC
>> 
>> this is strange.   I posted several concerns - and did not see any resolution to the issues raised.
>> g 
>> 
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 25, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> AGWG’ers,
>>> 
>>> As we have received only positive feedback leading up to this CfC and no responses indicating that group members could not live this this decision, this CfC is agreed on as a consensus opinion of the working group. It is worth noting that there was discussion that came up during the CFC, but the discussion was determined to either focus on issues that have already been discussed.
>>> 
>>> This decision will be recorded at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Decisions <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FGL%2Fwiki%2FDecisions&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1ab6006ec2be48e88f9008d4a210961e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311639507586899&sdata=IafGoKjeQf7zBqxVj8m380hh8%2BWgU1VfPa2tZjq0Bx8%3D&reserved=0>
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> AWK
>>> 
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>> Adobe 
>>> 
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C36cfdf48cb074d14101a08d4a3dd756a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636313618982506198&sdata=axcpk0RC9Ka470Q6Ip3v4KHioCLz6E2CAORPfXnRA0A%3D&reserved=0>
>>> 
>>> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 12:46
>>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>> Subject: CFC: Target Size and Target Size (no exception) SC 
>>> Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 12:47
>>> 
>>> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday May 25rd at 1:00pm Boston time.
>>> 
>>> The Working Group has reviewed and approved two new Success Criteria for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: Target Size and Target Size (no exception), at AA and AAA respectively, with the goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group.
>>> 
>>> Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4/results <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F09%2Fwbs%2F35422%2FSCreview_May_17%2F%23wbsq4%2Fresults&data=02%7C01%7C%7C36cfdf48cb074d14101a08d4a3dd756a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636313618982506198&sdata=40dPZbcD1w08VaNgzw7vKi4dMJHyTupW34qM%2FVOC%2B1s%3D&reserved=0> 
>>> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F05%2F23-ag-minutes.html%23item04&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cabc25a1800cb4c0ffad408d4a1fb8003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311548944237019&sdata=8nBllEuzUJNVOZKKC4j9%2B1YYlC6W8f1OgZ87LXtK494%3D&reserved=0> 
>>> 
>>> The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft: 
>>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Ftarget-size_ISSUE-60%2Fguidelines%2F%23target-size&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cabc25a1800cb4c0ffad408d4a1fb8003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311548944237019&sdata=puROWmnsgFdu3qPy8YqdwZXi1RrE8f9x1QDEurpS1o0%3D&reserved=0>
>>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size-no-exception <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Ftarget-size_ISSUE-60%2Fguidelines%2F%23target-size-all&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cabc25a1800cb4c0ffad408d4a1fb8003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311548944247027&sdata=mfVeQ%2BvJZwUG0QvA6aw8DhCdL4VT85NHH%2F6E5ezB1L0%3D&reserved=0>
>>> 
>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> AWK
>>> 
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>> Adobe 
>>> 
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cabc25a1800cb4c0ffad408d4a1fb8003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311548944247027&sdata=uE3XXiCvh%2BHibX3HwcmCDLSO9ASDS0UwZJyI%2FQMxJps%3D&reserved=0>
>>> Thanks,
>>> AWK
>>> 
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>> Adobe 
>>> 
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cabc25a1800cb4c0ffad408d4a1fb8003%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636311548944247027&sdata=uE3XXiCvh%2BHibX3HwcmCDLSO9ASDS0UwZJyI%2FQMxJps%3D&reserved=0>
>