Issues with Target Size SC

Hi all,

Recently we had a CFC for Target Size

Survey results: 
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4/results
Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04

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://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size-no-exception 
<https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size-all>

We initially passed this CFC but there was an objection from Stephen Repsher
that I'd like us to address, as well as other substantive comments from 
GreggV.

The chairs have decided to remove this SC from the editors draft while 
we address these
comments, so I'm starting this thread to do that.

Steve, you made some comments:

>I cannot live with the AAA version, or any version which plans to 
document a CSS hack as a viable technique for increasing target size 
(see #1). >The little testing it has undergone has turned up several 
issues, namely focus highlights and overlap, Which have the potential to 
end up >creating significant inaccessibility.  However, if the technique 
is to use a 44 pixel line, then I’ll support it.

You also mentioned/wanted clarification on:

> Can I assume that the CSS padding & negative margin technique 
> <http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe> that had been proposed to 
> meet this SC for links within blocks of text is being abandoned? [...]
>
> Yes, targets in blocks of text are excluded from the requirements
> */[Steve] I’ll accept that “yes” for AA, but there is no such 
> exception for AAA for which we still need to provide techniques./*
>

And there was a question about what constitutes a 'change' regarding the 
exception for user agent control.

Apologies if I have not captured the gist of your thinking. Does this 
cover your concerns?

Thanks
-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie