- From: Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 13:46:17 -0400
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, Mobile Accessibility Task Force <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAAbHSgjTPvqQTJ1sWgc4yuvRG3YWoZMPT36apC62WgejKb22uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Alastair, Thank you for summarizing the issue and options under consideration. We should be able to discuss this tomorrow at MATF. Best, Sukriti On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, 1:40 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > > > Sorry, I need to update my filters as these didn’t get to my inbox > (Detlev’s should have). > > Also, adding Sarah to the CC list as she expressed interest. > > > > Yesterday we discussed [1] the target-pointer-spacing criteria, with > reference to issues #1312 and #1361, and since then also issue #1384 [2]. > > > > My overview is that dealing with the various issues > <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/labels/2.5.8%20Pointer%20Target%20Spacing> > means we need to either: > > - Have a minimum size that is smaller (e.g. 26px) at AA, and forget > about the spacing aspect. > - Keep the current size/spacing metrics but not allow targets to share > spacing (so smaller targets are not incentivised). > - Something else. > - Drop the SC. > > > > The core problems (IMHO) were that: > > - With shared spacing, it can incentivise making targets smaller if > they are in a row/list. That may not be an issue for hitting them per-se, > but would impact people with low vision. > - Lots of tool-bars and vertical lists of links would not pass, it > seems like something that would be better dealt with by personalisation > rather than reducing the information density for everyone. Thus the > suggestion that we used a smaller target size to catch the really tiny > targets. > > > > If there isn’t space on the MAFT agenda this week (or next), we could > setup a specific call? > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Alastair > > > > 1] https://www.w3.org/2020/09/08-ag-minutes.html#item12 > > 2] https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1312 > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1361 > > https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1384 > > > > > > *From:* jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 09 September 2020 17:55 > *To:* Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> > *Cc:* Mobile Accessibility Task Force <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing > > > > > > As I think Kathy has done a lot of work here and has a clear view on this > let's discuss this and ask her about the history and research. > > > > Op wo 9 sep. 2020 om 15:22 schreef Detlev Fischer < > detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>: > > > > Am 09.09.2020 um 15:04 schrieb jake abma: > > Just a small reminder that the intent was not to have another SC text with > a smaller target size, but to have a least a 8 CSS px distance between > adjacent targets (morphed into the current text) > > > Hi Jake, > I thought working with a smaller size was what had emerged as an > alternative approach favoured by some in the last WG telco - but of course > am open to other approaches. Setting a lower target size for an AA > requirement may be easier to understand, and it would avoid the detrimental > approach of reducing target size in order compress groups pf targets (as > would probably also happen if we set 8px as minuimum distance). > > The other potential negative impact of an 8px distance requirement would > be the incentive to create targets with gaps rather than including padding > (of icons or text links) in the active target area, which at least for > mouse users would be better than gaps (I guess the tap heuristics make this > less of a problem under mobile OSs). > > Best, > Detlev > > > > Cheers! > > > > Op wo 9 sep. 2020 om 14:53 schreef Detlev Fischer < > detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>: > > Hi ALastair, > > I wondered whether it would help to create an issue for the reset of > Pointer Target Spacing - or what would you suggest is the best approach? > My personal hunch is that it might be easiest to start from the > normative text of our AAA SC Target size, just with a smaller target > value like 26 x 26px. That woud seem most consistent. This could easily > done - but I guess just doing that as a pull request on the SC text > would leapfrog the discussion we will likley want to have before that? > CC'ing Mobile a11y TF... > > Best, > Detlev > > -- > Detlev Fischer > DIAS GmbH > (Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH) > > Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45 > > http://www.dias.de > Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites > > > > -- > > Detlev Fischer > > DIAS GmbH > > (Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH) > > > > Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45 > > > > http://www.dias.de > > Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2020 17:46:43 UTC