Re: CFC - Target Size (2 options)

-1 to both,

Leonie's comment of 'death by a thousand paper cuts' is unfortunately too
true about so many of these SCs
because of prioritizing timeline over quality - we have lost our focus in
this frenzy. The reason the comments are so hard to address other than just
changing the SC to satisfy them, is that we do not agree, do not
have consensus amongst ourselves as to the goal of each one before exposing
for comments at this point. I am concerned. As another commented, I do not
want to be the one spitting in the soup.

But this isn't soup, it can be a highly important international standard.
Take 3 deep breaths.

My suggestion is that we take a pause. Find consensus among ourselves by
seeing if the each SC, as worded, is meant to achieve the original goal for
the user need that prompted it coming to us from the 3 task forces.
Rework wording to address that need, taking into account issued comments,
and come to agreement on each one. And then, we have to try a real stab at
internationalization for relevant SCs that need it.

** katie **

Katie Haritos-Shea

Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)

703-371-5545

ryladog@gmail.com

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> -1 to the first option
>
> 0 to the second.
>
>
>
> I could live with the second option, and on Steve’s point:
>
>
>
> > The first question is simply why would a person with a disability have
> more success hitting a target of 26x26 with 8 spacing (pass) than hitting a
> 43x43 target with 7 spacing (fail)?
>
>
>
> If you had a list of links which were plenty wide enough, but 28px high
> with 8px spacing, you have 36px between the middle of each target.
>
>
>
> Touch devices have algorithms that help you select things, so spacing acts
> as a increase in the size of the touch target.
>
>
>
> Having said that, I don’t think we’ve bottomed out the effects there, or
> come up with defendable values yet, or worked out if that really helps the
> author achieve certain interfaces, which is why I can’t +1 it.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>