Re: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing

That is the effective result of the proposed SC. It applies to targets less
than 44X44. For anything bigger, there isn't  a spacing requirement.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020, 4:48 PM Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:

> Spacing seems to incentivize smaller icons with spacing over larger icons
> with no spacing.  Do we have concrete research that says smaller with
> spacing is more effective than larger target sizes alone?  If not perhaps
> we might want to allow 44px targets without spacing as also acceptable.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Kathy Wahlbin <kathyw@ia11y.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:34 PM
> *To:* Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> *Cc:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Sarah Horton <
> sarah.horton@gmail.com>; jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>; Mobile
> Accessibility Task Force <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Detlev –
>
>
>
> The text for the 4px, we did mean 4px on each side.  Is there a better way
> to rephrase that?
>
>
>
> The CSS pixels came from research at Microsoft which stated:
>
>    - Icons should be at least 16 X 16px
>    - The target area needs to be 24 X 24px
>    - Spacing (margin) needs to be 16% of either the height or width
>
> Based on the concerns from the WG, we went back and forth on the approach
> and felt putting the minimum size and keeping the margins was the best way
> of keeping the intent of SC.
>
>
>
> Kathy
>
> VP Enterprise Accessibility & General Manager
>
>
>
> *T* (978) 443-0798  *C* (978) 760-0682
>
> *The Paciello Group & Interactive Accessibility *
>
> 17757 US Highway 19 N, Suite 560, Clearwater, FL 33764
>
> https://www.paciellogroup.com
>
> https://www.interactiveaccessibility.com
>
>
>
> A *Vispero™* Company
>
> https://vispero.com/
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
> sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by
> an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may
> be unlawful.
>
>
>
> *From:* Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:23 PM
> *To:* Kathy Wahlbin <kathyw@ia11y.com>
> *Cc:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Sarah Horton <
> sarah.horton@gmail.com>; jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>; Mobile
> Accessibility Task Force <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I couldn‘t make it today to the MATF telco, but here are two
> things that we may still need to address:
>
> 1. “with a minimum spacing of the height and width of 4 CSS pixels“:
>
> I think the current wording does not clarify whether 4 px spacing is the
> *combined* value for width (e.g. 2 px left and 2px right) or whether 4px
> would be required all around the target. Can we clarify that?
>
> 2. For designers aiming for more compact icon bars or dropdown menus, this
> approach seems to encourage a pattern of 24px width / 4px space (or 8px,
> see above) / 24px width and so on. I contend that 28px width flush 28px of
> the adjacent target might be the preferable implementation as it increases
> chances of hitting the target - at least in the mouse pointer space where
> no tab heuristics apply. What is the rationale of preferring smaller
> targets with gaps over larger targets without gaps if both have the same
> size and take the exact same space (assuming that many targets will have
> some padding which would be part of the target area)?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Detlev
>
> Sent from phone
>
>
>
> Am 10.09.2020 um 18:21 schrieb Kathy Wahlbin <kathyw@ia11y.com>:
>
> 
>
> Hi Alastair –
>
>
>
> Here is what the mobile taskforce is proposing for the wording on the SC.
>
>
>
> For each target that has a width or height less than 44 CSS pixels, the
> target area has a width and height of at least 24 CSS pixels with a minimum
> spacing on the height and width of 4 CSS pixels where the spacing cannot
> overlap.
>
>
>
> The 24 CSS px comes from Microsoft’s research where they are recommending
> a target area of 24px with a minimum of 16% spacing.  If we look at the
> minimum that is 3.8px so we rounded that to 4 CSS pixels.
>
>
>
> Kathy
>
> VP Enterprise Accessibility & General Manager
>
>
>
> *T* (978) 443-0798  *C* (978) 760-0682
>
> *The Paciello Group & Interactive Accessibility *
>
> 17757 US Highway 19 N, Suite 560, Clearwater, FL 33764
>
> https://www.paciellogroup.com
>
> https://www.interactiveaccessibility.com
>
>
>
> A *Vispero™* Company
>
> https://vispero.com/
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
> sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by
> an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may
> be unlawful.
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:47 AM
> *To:* Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>; Detlev Fischer <
> detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>; Mobile Accessibility Task Force <
> public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing
>
>
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
>
>
> I think the Apple & MS resource are for providing app icons, the assets,
> they don’t speak to target sizes. For example, the smallest icons would
> probably best used in contexts like favicons, little icons within a larger
> component that might not even be interactive.
>
>
>
> I think the Mobile task force are meeting in about 15 minutes:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/66524/telco/
>
>
>
> Hopefully they will have a chance to discuss it. Sorry for providing that
> very last minute, I just got out of a run of meetings ☹
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 10 September 2020 12:20
> *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>
> *Subject:* Re: Best place for revised Pointer Target Spacing
>
>
>
> Thanks, Alastair!
>
>
>
> I was wondering if we could look at interface guidelines for desktop apps
> for a minimum size for icons, for example, Apple’s minimum size is 16 x 16:
>
>
>
>
> https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/icons-and-images/app-icon/
>
>
> https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/icons-and-images/custom-icons/
>
>
>
> And Windows is also 16 x 16:
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/design/style/app-icons-and-logos#more-about-app-icon-assets
>
>
>
> That’s assuming those are research-informed minimums (you’d hope!!).
>
>
>
> For menus, I didn’t see any specification the item height in the interface
> guidelines as I think those are not defined by the author—the contents are
> but not the presentation.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
>
> I’m away next week and won’t be available to meet.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2020, at 6:39 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
>
>
>
>