- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 18:03:33 +0000
- To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
On 01/11/2020 17:56, Sukriti Chadha wrote:
> While the wording we came up with, and the one Jake later refined does
> not prescribe a minimum size, it does remove the incentive to have
> targets that are too small since there is a minimum distance from the
> next target you need to have.
>
> It is by no means ideal. It is a low bar, but a bar nonetheless that
> prevents the really bad cases where small targets are placed close to
> each other.
So if this is absolutely purely only about spacing, with as a side
effect a disincentive to have small targets ... why has the SC been
renamed to "Target Size" (at least in the google doc
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_EHFVE-p4jEtKFa2jMEUruSvu6iv-Vt7UxRW9SrHTCQ/edit#heading=h.tuvbez1itgj0)
? Seems this is reverse psychology type stuff that is not made clear to
the reader ("why is the title about size, when the normative wording
only takes about distance/spacing?")
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2020 18:03:47 UTC