- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 10:04:13 -0500
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>, "Detlev Fischer (TK)" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZSb_RMJjVeSxR-1_khfvNPfwMknMpYkYWcDoS2YspsYw@mail.gmail.com>
"A mechanism is available..." is an acknowledgement that user agents are getting better at taking over things that authors previously had to do... the classic example is zoom which in the middle of WCAG 2 became possible in browsers, and so we added that phrase. So in a way it's a "until user agents..." replacement... I think its better that "until user agents". It may be an appropriate phrase for this SC. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > Following that argumentation, wouldn't that apply to many other success > criteria - potentially even color luminosity ratio? In my understanding > "mechanism is available" should apply to authoring options (such as for > audio controls) rather than the WCAG 1.0 "until user agents" approach. > > Best, > Shadi > > > On 11/01/2018 15:07, White, Jason J wrote: > >> I’ve previously raised the possibility that this need could be met by an >> assistive technology or at the user agent level. Similarly, as noted in >> recent discussion, it could be satisfied by an option in an application. >> For these reasons, I would support the “mechanism is available” approach >> here. >> >> *From:* Denis Boudreau [mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2018 9:00 AM >> *To:* Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> >> *Cc:* Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>; Detlev Fischer >> (TK) <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >> *Subject:* Re: CFC - Changes to Target Size for Issue 631 >> >> +1 to Kathy's proposal >> >> >> /Denis >> >> -- >> >> Denis Boudreau >> >> Principal Accessibility Consultant & training lead >> >> Deque Systems, Inc. >> >> » denis.boudreau@deque.com <mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com> >> >> » 514-730-9168 >> >> Keep in touch! @dboudreau <https://na01.safelinks.protec >> tion.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2Fdboudre >> au&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cea2aa062215e451d53 >> 4f08d558fbe33e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C >> 636512761230185586&sdata=7tL5c6AJFPwc4pyEgEg9OblpKvlc4t% >> 2F5owyGLAcU2eQ%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com >> <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>> wrote: >> >> +1 to the Kathy Wahlbin version from this morning >> >> >> glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% >> 2F%2Fdeque.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cea2aa062 >> 215e451d534f08d558fbe33e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65% >> 7C0%7C0%7C636512761230185586&sdata=qEsH7L7HrY%2B8k61K3lc2VK >> XTZZBT3pp6E%2B7zZDEcjnI%3D&reserved=0> | 512.963.3773 >> <tel:(512)%20963-3773> >> *web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals >> >> IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: >> Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC) >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A% >> 2F%2Fwww.accessibilityassociation.org%2Fcertification&data= >> 02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cea2aa062215e451d534f08d558fbe3 >> 3e%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636512761230 >> 185586&sdata=0WdcDVSNnTb36Y1c3z9Zq8M51LOEp%2FuNhgLvZjgz35c%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:19 AM, Kathy Wahlbin >> <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com >> <mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>> wrote: >> >> Here is what I would propose: >> >> The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 44 by 44 >> CSS pixels or is at least 26 by 26 CSS pixels with 8 CSS pixels >> spacing between targets except when: >> >> Equivalent - The target is available through an equivalent link >> or control on the same page that is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels; >> Inline- The target is in a sentence or block of text; >> User Agent Control - The size of the target is determined by the >> user agent and is not modified by the author. >> Essential- A particular presentation of the target is essential >> to the information being conveyed; >> >> >> This is based on the Microsoft research that the MATF looked >> at. I am travelling so I can't pull up the study paper. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Detlev Fischer (TK) [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de >> <mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>] >> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:55 AM >> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: CFC - Changes to Target Size for Issue 631 >> >> Hi Kathy, >> >> can you make a quick draft for this? >> >> I guess the problem is that it might be too late for another >> draft. And we still have the issue of lists of links, in >> dropdown menus and the like - we would need to have a number >> what spacing (or target height) we would consider sufficient, >> and might end up where we were (44x22). Or am I missing something? >> >> Detlev >> >> Am 11.01.2018 um 04:30 schrieb Kathy Wahlbin: >> > >> > -1 As mentioned on previous call, changing the SC to single >> dimension >> > is not meeting the needs of the end user. >> > >> > What if we went back to 44x44 CSS pixels and added an >> additional >> > exception that the minimum target size does not need to be met >> if >> > there is sufficient spacing between targets. That would help >> users >> > with tremors and other mobility challenges to be more >> successful in >> > hitting the target area while allowing designers to have >> smaller >> > target regions. >> > >> > So the designer would have two options – meet the minimum >> requirements >> > for target size (keeping the current exceptions) or having a >> smaller >> > target size but making sure that targets have minimum spacing >> between >> > them. >> > >> > *From:*Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com >> <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>] >> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:55 PM >> > *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> >> > *Subject:* CFC - Changes to Target Size for Issue 631 >> > *Importance:* High >> > >> > Call For Consensus — ends January 12 at 1:45pm Boston time. >> > >> > >
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2018 15:04:37 UTC