- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:37:12 +0000
- To: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org
On 30/10/2020 00:25, Alastair Campbell wrote: > To keep it simple and allow for spacing I'd suggest: > For each target, the horizontal and vertical non-overlapping distance between the center of the target and the @@center of the other targets@@ is at least 24 CSS pixels, except when... Yup, that seems the same idea as my clumsy "circles of 12px radius from each target's centre that can't overlap", in essence. Except for the "non-overlapping distance" part which ... doesn't make sense, and if you're just going centre to centre, there's no need to talk about "horizontal and vertical" (unless you intend to split the horizontal and vertical part of the distance and treat them as separate?) However, thinking this through, just looking at distances from centres (either using circles, or just thinking about a line from the centres), does drop one aspect of the more convoluted "from the centre to one edge and then distance to the nearest opposite edge" formulation - it doesn't preserve the actual clearance around the centres themselves. You could have a 1x1px button that's right next to a 48x48px button and they'd be fine (their centres are more than 24px apart) but obviously completely unusable. So perhaps a more complete formulation (that avoids the not-very-understandable "non-overlapping distance" wording) might be: "For each target: - the distance between the center of the target and the center of any adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, and - no other adjacent target's area is closer than 12 CSS pixels to the target's center except when..." Thinking this through even further though, this idea of circles/distances from centres/even the "non-overlapping distance" idea now guarantee spacing...but none of them express any kind of minimum size. No matter how the idea itself is formulated, what happens if i have two 1x1px buttons that are, say, 50px apart from each other. They're very wide apart, so each has a very comfortable spacing/clearance around it that doesn't "overlap" with the clearance to the other button. Yet still, they have ludicrous target size. I don't think any of the formulations here, nor in the original document, account for that - trying to define size by not defining size can be gamed the opposite way, resulting in super-small controls but with ample clearance? 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 Friday, 30 October 2020 01:37:26 UTC