Re: Inline links with large-enough activation (touch) target (rough idea)

If the inline link is clearly visible (underlined / rendered bold, strongly different color, whatever) I do not see a decisive advantage in havong a visible padding going beyond the link text. The practical problem touch users have is to hit the right line if above or below is another link, especially as the finger obscures the target.
So I think the actual separation by line height would the factor needed to facilitate touch activation in a scenario of lots of inline links in a piece of text.

As to the size of the target, I had previously proposed to require more specifically that *at least one dimension* of the target is 50 px wide AND that the other, if narrower (as is the case with, say, 11pt inline text) would need a separation of 50 px measured from the centrer of target to the centre of the adjacent target (if there is one). 

11p pt inline links *not* surrounded by other adjacent links above or below would usually pose no problem for touch activation - and as the link text is usually be longer than one or a few characters, the requirement for 50px width would usually be met. (Of course there are edge cases like linked footnote numbers and the like.)

I agree wit Alastair that the overlap of the link padding of same colour would be problematic as it ia not clear which link is on top and separation is not easy. There may even be cases where adjacent links in two lines might be construed as one, etc. etc.
 

--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Patrick H. Lauke schrieb am 14.11.2016 13:19:

> 
> 
> On 14/11/2016 13:15, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>> Patrick wrote:
>>> A lot of sites that up until now were doing what was ok under WCAG
>>> 1 / 2 will now fail a new SC that addresses a problem not
>>> previously covered by WCAG. Seems unavoidable, I think?
>>
>> Yes, it’s just this aspect in particular (now that you made it more
>> concrete with an example!) hits home as one that makes a default site
>> fail a new guideline. Even an un-styled site would fail, which is
>> unusual across the guidelines.
>>
>> And apologies for jumping in on a topic I haven’t followed closely,
>> in my defence it is the sort of feedback I’d have once they all go up
>> for review in Dec.
> 
> Oh no, the feedback's certainly appreciated. As you say, these are 
> things that would be brought up once it's out for wider review, so good 
> to start formulating some response to this sort of concern early on.
> 
> P
> (and yes, due to some personal issues, my responses here may have come 
> across more...direct/confrontational...than usual; it's not intended)
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 14 November 2016 16:44:25 UTC