Re: CFC - Changes to Target Size for Issue 631

On 11/01/2018 00:44, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 00:23, Alex Li (CELA) wrote:
> [...]
>> If you have a reasonably recent version of Office desktop, you can see 
>> this in action by setting the spacing between targets to be optimized 
>> for mouse or touch. Switching to optimizing for touch keeps the touch 
>> targets the same size as before, but the space between them is 
>> increased. I don’t think our approach is “wrong”. But our approach 
>> does not meet the SC, at least by the letter…
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken (testing in Word 2013) the clickable/tap-able part 
> of the controls is also enlarged when switching to from mouse to touch 
> optimized spacing, so arguably it does meet at least the spirit (if 
> perhaps not the hard numbers) of the SC.

However, it does raise the question that I posed previously: do large 
enough target sizes always need to be there by default, or would a 
page/site that provides the user a mechanism to actively switch to 
"touch-optimized" sizes (or uses other mechanisms, such as detecting 
presence of a touchscreen - through JS, interaction media queries, etc) 
also pass the SC as it stands? Or should it have language along the 
lines of "a mechanism is available..."?

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2018 00:51:44 UTC