Re: let's bump to 10mm from 9mm

In WCAG we generally addressed issues in Success Criteria which
disproportionately affected people with disabilities.

I think that probably applies here...

There are people who don't have normal fingers, people with shaky hands who
could be helped by a requirement here that does not overly inhibit the UI
expression of the developer... I think we can come up with something
specific which makes sense.


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, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 17/12/2015 22:32, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
>> It's not outside of developer *thinking*, but simply outside of
>> developer *control*. There is no way for a dev to guarantee a certain
>> physical rendering size. All it would take is a device to come around
>> with some crazy mapping
>>
>
> In fact, we don't even need to look very far. If we're taking these
> guidelines to also apply to touchscreen laptops, there's now a huge range
> of Windows 10 touch-enabled laptops out there, in a variety of physical
> screen sizes and default resolutions. Additionally, users can even set
> their overall resolution to something non-standard on these devices
> (leaving aside the fact that if they set their resolution too high, they
> shouldn't really complain if things get too small to touch on the
> touchscreen).
>
> >  (and I now remember the uproar that went around
>
>> the responsive web design community when the iPad Mini with its "smaller
>> screen/same resolution in CSS pixels" came out) for any previously safe
>> and conformant content to be immediately non-conformant when tested on
>> that device.Sure, devs will likely find some hacky loophole to try and
>> make their sites/content work ok even in those scenarios, but it's
>> basically a fundamentally shaky foundation to build a hard pass/fail
>> requirement on.
>>
>
> In essence, if they find out that a device (like the iPad Mini) renders
> their content and controls too small, they may think "ah, I should really
> see if I can somehow tweak this to make it a bit more usable on this
> device"...but if there was a hard requirement in an SC it'd be "ah, I must
> somehow find a way to make it bigger for this device, otherwise my previous
> PASS will be a FAIL under the 'mobile' extension for WCAG".
>
> This makes me wonder slightly if it's even possible to enshrine what is
> effectively a usability issue as a hard accessibility SC...unless it's kept
> VERY vague and/or provides mitigiating circumstances (which would then
> weaken it considerably as a hard SC).
>
>
> 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
>
>
>