- From: Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 12:12:42 -0400
- To: "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "ran@w3.org" <ran@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <09e9f697-d1d3-a754-49a9-8e1993a07eae@redstartsystems.com>
*MATF Minutes October 1, 2020
*
*Link: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-mobile-a11y-minutes.html*
*
Full text of minutes:*
Mobile Accessibility Task Force Teleconference
01 Oct 2020
Attendees
Present
Kathy, Detlev, Kim_patch, Sukriti
Regrets
Chair
Kathleen_Wahlbin
Scribe
Kim_patch
Contents
* Topics <https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#agenda>
1. Touch Target
<https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#item01>
* Summary of Action Items
<https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
* Summary of Resolutions
<https://www.w3.org/2020/10/01-mobile-a11y-minutes.html#ResolutionSummary>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Touch Target
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gl0XVAY66jpBXphUse Q
Kathy: Sukriti – can you summarize your perspective and research and we
can use that as the basis of our conversation
Sukriti: two lines of thinking – avoid the worst cases, people with
mobility issues
... also look at numbers. Steep drop off after 16, next is 20
... for density independent pixels – conversion that I use translate to
CSS pixels. Using device agnostic pixel measurements
... 5.8 mL was the lower bound MIT research – error rate is 15%. If we
are okay with that that translates to 20 pixels
... Google guidelines has 24 pixel examples all over the place. Icons
were 44 this was for smaller targets
... icons are still touch targets even if it is for icons
... 24 is higher than the research but more in line with Google research
Sukriti default font size and default spacing 1.2 we come to 19. The AA
requirements text spacing requires 1.5. The default line spacing in
general seems to be 1.2. If we apply that to the 16 pixel that gets us
to 19.2.
Detlev: if we go that low you could argue it's not necessary, but there
are still times where developers choose very tiny – that would be
prevented. You could argue that any kind of requirement would be better
than nothing. But I do sympathize with the view that 24 is a more
reasonable and usable size.
Kathy: if we say the size of the target or pointer including the space
between pixel is 24 x 24 including space above and below – where does
that get us.
Sukriti: but if you count above and below that would be higher than 19.2
– 22.4
Kathy: they can overlap so if you had a vertical stack list you can look
at the spacing between the first and the second and then the second and
the third and include that in there so that would be 22 so the default
would pass
Detlev: how about stacked vertically without spacing – may be sites that
use text as is
Kathy: let's look at Amazon's lists – I don't see without spacing in between
Sukriti is mostly footers. None of the good ones that aim for meeting a
WCAG would do that
Detlev: just so we are clear that default size without any padding would
fail – if you want to meet WCAG, either padding or larger font size if
you are just doing stacked
Kathy: Microsoft is well within those limits
... site map and Microsoft at the bottom where it says contact privacy –
Sukriti: that would definitely meet the 24
Kathy: it looks like IBM would meet that too
Sukriti: I'm looking at the W3C footer – might be short
Kathy: looks like they are too close together anyway, and should
consider changing
... TPAC site passes easily
Sukriti: Google footers much bigger than 24
Kathy: PayPal passes
Sukriti: PayPal footer is small but the spacing – it would pass
Detlev: CNN footer looks like it's too small
Kathy: and news sites sometimes it's small but often it's on different
lines – that would be okay.
... CNN footer is okay, but at the top they have bulleted items – US
version of the site – those are close
... looking at CNN bulleted items – ones that are not two lines would fail
Sukriti: they're 17.92 – no padding
Kathy: so the rest of the site passes there is one small problem, just
need a little more padding in those instances
... I think this is a good example where they are meeting for almost all
the areas except for that
Detlev: and we find a good formulation that makes it clear that the
spacing is included in those 24
Kathy: above or below doesn't work for targets that are horizontal, so
saying the space around it
<Kathy> The size of the target including the space around target is at
least 24 by 24 CSS pixels except when:
Kathy: we can also explain it in the understanding dock. We can give
some examples. I really like the examples from Last time with pictures
Sukriti: spacing overlap incentivizes smaller targets issue
Detlev: but spacing above and below belongs to that target and should
not be shared?
Kathy: 24 x 24 square around the target so that it's easier to use your
pointer to activate that control and so the fact that the space may
overlap is not as much of an issue. Originally spacing in between came
from trying to avoid having targets where it was hard to touch it
because the size was small and the spacing wasn't there. So whole thing
was around the spacing around a target to make it easier to not press
the different target.
Detlev: tiny text?
Kathy: if small text size and small word still need 24 by 24.
Detlev: I see what you mean either smaller space or smaller text. So
there is no longer an incentive to have tiny text because the overall
measurement would not change. It's not just the measurement for the
spaces in between which would encourage that, it's the measurement for both.
Sukriti: we might have to add a note in the understanding document
clarifying that
Kathy: Sukriti note – do we still need to have that exemption
Sukriti: that was Patrick's comment – includes so something modified by
the author is not counted toward this
... if the font size, for example has been changed or customized by the
author and is no longer a default or higher we should exempt it
... material design – maybe we can exclude that one
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/text-spacing.html
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/text-spacing.html>
Kathy: default font size plus the space above and below would be 22 point
Detlev: stacked links default is 19
Kathy: sites – Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Adobe
Detlev: eBay, CNN, big news portals that are internationally popular
Sukriti: New York Times meets it as well
... looking at popular Indian newspapers – they seem well above 24
https://www.hindustantimes.com/
Sukriti: financial times meets it as well – it's visibly bigger than
most sites
... the line height is not 12 pixels, it's 1.2 of the font size
Kathy: On Financial times – bullets in drop-down menus
Sukriti: FT footers meet it. Bulleted list is 22, not 24
Kathy: W3C site fails in footer
Sukriti: graph from MIT research that shows that it drops off
Kathy: that's in your research
... I think we go for 24 – the whole point for the success criteria was
to make sure we have enough space with the target and the spacing around
it so we could reduce the error rate. This is going back to a hybrid of
what we originally suggested and that.
Detlev: I'm happy to put on the 24
Kim: I think so too
Kathy: by email to the thread
... thanks to everyone for doing this today – and we have a good set of
notes
Detlev: thanks for the research
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's
scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version
(CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
$Date: 2020/10/01 15:57:50 $
**___________________________________________________________
Kimberly Patch
(617) 325-3966
kim@scriven.com <mailto:kim@scriven.com>
www.redstartsystems.com <http://www.redstartsystems.com>
- making speech fly
PatchonTech.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
@PatchonTech
www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch>
___________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2020 16:13:01 UTC