Re: 48px vs 44px target sizing

I think Alistair has a point that *IF* our proposed measure for target size exceeds platform standards, it might seem odd if we happen to settle for Android's 48 px while developers following Apple's 44 px  will fail this SC.
As this might be whittled down in WG discussions anyway, shouldn't we change to 50 / 25?

--
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

Jonathan Avila schrieb am 05.09.2016 15:12:

> 
> Ø  [David wrote] I don't think we can just say "follow platform recommendations"... What are other's thoughts?
> 
>  
> 
> We should determine what is necessary to provide comparable access to people with disabilities.  What platform vendors recommend may not take into account our target audience of users with disabilities even if they overall have a good track record. So, our recommendation should be based on research and evidence and simply not on any platform’s recommendation.  If our recommendation and the platforms happen to overlap or be close – great.  
> 
>  
> 
> Ø  [Alistair wrote in a later message]- It uses the lower end of the platform standards and we can say “use platform standards”.
> 
>  
> 
> Why do people with disabilities need to settle for the lower end of platform standards?  When the platform standards likely didn’t take them into account at all?
> 
>  
> 
> In the past I’ve spoken to an organization that spent millions researching fonts.  They created this font that was wonderful they said because it was so readable and they adopted this corporate font based on all this research.  Well, I asked – how many people with low vision were part of the research – none of course – and the font isn’t very friendly for users with low vision and perhaps other print disabilities.  So would we just accept the vendors recommendations because they spent so much time and money researching a font – when the font doesn’t meet the needs of our audicne?
> 
>  
> 
> We aren’t writing general standards for mobile web content for the typical user – if we were I’d say sure pick the lowest – but the point of this effort is to address the accessibility gaps in access by users with disabilities that has been overlooked and not addressed due to efforts to get things to market.  If all we can produce is some watered down standards that just take what works for the average non-disabled user and codify them – then I’d suggest we have missed our purpose.
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan Avila
> 
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> 
> SSB BART Group 
> 
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> 
> 
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
> 
>  
> 
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/>  | Twitter <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup>  | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup>  | Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah>  | Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> 
> 
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2016 8:12 AM
> To: Alastair Campbell
> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 48px vs 44px target sizing
> 
>  
> 
> We've seen studies recommending up to 57px... We went back and forth on 50 px but dropped it to 48px for the very reason you mention regarding Android devs...  Are you recommending further reduction?
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> It would make sense for an accessibility standard to take the upper limit not the lower....
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> In the absence of any accessibility standard on the size of buttons we've all followed different measures. I don't think we can take individual investments into strong consideration when were actually writing the standard.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I want to read through the study John mentioned... Regarding people with dexterity issues... 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> I don't think we can just say "follow platform recommendations"... What are other's thoughts?
> 
> On Monday, 5 September 2016, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote:
> 
> David wrote:
> “Google is recommending 48px, Apple 44px... our recommendation is 48px. I doubt that will get push back...”
> 
> Playing devil’s advocate a little, but can you imagine doing accessibility audits in future and failing dozens of sites created by developers used to working to iOS guidelines, due to a difference of 4px?
> 
> We use WCAG + Apple’s guidelines as the basis for testing iOS apps, so I’d rather they aligned than have to explain the difference. We have plenty of explaining to do anyway, but this aspect seems so trivial that we would probably end up ignoring the difference and going with Apple’s guidelines.
> 
> Developers could (quite rightly) say that Apple has a good track record of accessibility on iOS, why do they need to re-layout their app/site for a 4px difference?
> 
> Is there a good justification for 48 over 44px? Does that make a difference in practical use?
> 
> The other way around (e.g. with Android developers) is fine, 48px is bigger than 44px so going by the platform guidelines means a pass.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Alastair
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> 
>  
> 
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> 
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> 
> LinkedIn  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> 
> 
> 
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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> 
> 
> 
>  
>

Received on Monday, 5 September 2016 13:21:59 UTC