Re: Pointer Target Spacing Proposal for Rationale and Research

I do like the idea of the approach, but what user need exactly are we
trying to solve now? Is this truly enough for that user need?
How many times do we see such small targets, and how much problems /
feedback do we have / is collected, that this is what we try to solve now?
Most targets we talked about last year do not fit these dimensions.

We all know and see what the value of good targets and possible spacing
does in general, but with lowering the bar this much aren't we only
desperate trying to get something in there without solving specific needs
for people who need it, which may give a false impression you're creating
something accessible / becoming  a sham?

When looking at the wished / chosen approach for Silver, it all starts with
the user need to be solved.

At least we should be clear about this in the Understanding docs.

ps. The example you gave Detlev are all in a sentence and are excepted...

Op za 26 sep. 2020 om 19:28 schreef Detlev Fischer <
detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>:

> Thanks for the extensive background research!
> As to your proposal For a revised SC text that calls for 24x24px without
> allowing fir spacing, my gut feeling now is that we may only succeed in
> getting this adopted by the working group if we allow for target plus
> spacing, too, to cover the frequent scenarios of stacked links in TOCs,
> drop-downs and so on; as we discussed, one approach might be to work from
> the browser text size and line height defaults and include target (16px)
> AND default size of spacing top and bottom to arrive at the overall size
> requirement (all target, or target plus spacing) where spacing is shared.
> We could set 16px as the absolute minimum for target size, and 20? 22? as
> the minimum of target plus default spacing. This is much less than what the
> user need would call for, but it might prevent really bad cases (for
> example, people reducing the default text size and then have stacked links
> with default line height, no padding etc.)
> Browsers do render the unstyled default of links in div, p, or most likely
> ul / li constructs differently - I have quickly knocked together a page
> without any styling (except giving the links a cyan background) just to see
> how browsers handle the spacing default:
>
> http://3needs.org/en/testing/code/target-spacing-default.html
>
>
> Sent from phone
>
> Am 26.09.2020 um 05:11 schrieb Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>:
>
> 
> Hi Kim, Kathy and MATF members,
>
> Please find the document below with research, overview of issues raised
> and a revised proposal that has the rationale from a few different angles.
> Please let me know if I can help clarify anything or answer questions.
> Thank you!
>
> Document -
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gl0XVAY66jpBXphDR_VbbtjsJZfC_vvDJCMa_17SR2U/edit#heading=h.tuvbez1itgj0
>
> Gist of the new proposal :
>
> Target Size (AA)
>
> The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 24 by 24 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 : This exemption would not apply as soon as anything like font size -
> and in the case of mobile/tablet browsers, viewport meta - has been
> modified by the author)
>
>
> Best,
> Sukriti
>
>