Re: FW: Pointer target size

Sorry for the multiple mails, but distsnce need to be in there ..

For each edge of a target, the distance to the closest edge of the nearest
target on the opposite side is at least 24 CSS pixels, except when:


Op do 29 okt. 2020 22:29 schreef jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>:

> Here it is:
>
>
> For each edge of a target, the closest edge of the nearest target on the
> opposite side is at least 24 CSS pixels, except when:
>
> Op do 29 okt. 2020 22:24 schreef jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>:
>
>> If fact, what we're looking for is more like: each outer edge of a target
>> is at least 24 px separated from other targets on the opposite side
>>
>> Op do 29 okt. 2020 22:14 schreef jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 18px area I mean...
>>>
>>> Op do 29 okt. 2020 22:12 schreef jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Small addition, even with this adjustment you'll en up with a 18px
>>>> target, imagine the right one is 24, the left 12 with 6px spacing will pass
>>>>
>>>> Op do 29 okt. 2020 21:37 schreef Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com
>>>> >:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alastair, Rachael, Chuck and MATF members,
>>>>>
>>>>> In today's MATF meeting, we went over the latest proposed wording in this
>>>>> document
>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_EHFVE-p4jEtKFa2jMEUruSvu6iv-Vt7UxRW9SrHTCQ/edit>.
>>>>> Jake brought up a great point with an example. It had two adjacent targets
>>>>> of 12 px width with a 6 px spacing that would pass this criteria even
>>>>> though each would have only 18 px in total instead of the 24 we are aiming
>>>>> for (a drawing is included in the doc). It would run into similar problems
>>>>> as the one before where smaller target sizes might be encouraged due to
>>>>> shared spacing. To avoid that we added "non-overlapping" to the distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I can help clarify. Thank you everyone for your
>>>>> patience with this!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Sukriti
>>>>>
>>>>> PS We also looked into going with a 24X24 version of 2.5.5 (the AAA
>>>>> version) but considered elements such as side rail links that aren't part
>>>>> of sentences but standalone links which would fail the criteria on a large
>>>>> number of websites even though those are the only targets in a 24X24 area.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:24 AM Alastair Campbell <
>>>>> acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I should have CCed the task force as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* Alastair Campbell
>>>>>> *Sent:* 22 October 2020 15:53
>>>>>> *To:* WCAG list
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We discussed pointer-target-spacing yesterday, and whilst there was a
>>>>>> general wish to carry on with it, we needed a new version to account for
>>>>>> some of the comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ve gathered a couple of suggestions together to form this version:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For each target, the horizontal and vertical distance between the
>>>>>> center of the target and the closest edge of the nearest target is at least
>>>>>> 12 CSS pixels except when:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    - *Inline*: The target is in a sentence or block of text;
>>>>>>    - *User Agent Control:* The size of the target is determined by
>>>>>>    the user agent and is not modified by the author;
>>>>>>    - *Essential*: A particular presentation of the target is
>>>>>>    essential to the information being conveyed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Note*: The User Agent Control exception would not apply as soon as
>>>>>> styling properties such as font size - and in the case of mobile/tablet
>>>>>> browsers, viewport meta - has been modified by the author
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Google doc version
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_EHFVE-p4jEtKFa2jMEUruSvu6iv-Vt7UxRW9SrHTCQ/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t panic about the “12px” bit, that is the same as 24px wide/tall
>>>>>> but if you measure from the center then you half it. It was a suggestion
>>>>>> from Jeff Witt in #1444 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1444>
>>>>>> that should prevent the shared space aspect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CCing Wilco to make sure the testing perspective is considered for
>>>>>> this approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other comments to deal with, but does this seem like a good
>>>>>> basis to continue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Alastair
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>