RE: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2

The 3.2 refers to the section in the mobile accessibility note: http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-accessibility-mapping/#mobile-accessibility-considerations-primarily-related-to-principle-2-operable

You can see the WCAG success criteria listed under the headings.  For 3.2 we do not have a mapping to a WCAG success criteria.

Kathy
CEO & Founder
Interactive Accessibility

T (978) 443-0798  F (978) 560-1251  C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com<mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com<http://www.interactiveaccessibility.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. Thank you.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 11:54 AM
To: WCAG (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)
Subject: RE: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2

Alastair,
These two are being proposed for SC 3.2.
AWK

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:32 AM
To: WCAG (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)
Subject: Re: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2


3.2 Touch Target Size and Spacing

  *   Providing adequate touch target size / Ensuring that touch targets are large enough to touch accurately without magnification
  *   Provide adequate spacing between touch targets

AC: For these two, I think the first is far more important.  Using large targets is well established as helpful for everyone (Fiitt's law), and whilst I can see having space between targets being helpful, it is much harder to do on smaller screens. (Thinking of the standard 'four buttons in a row' interface on many phone apps.)

To me that indicates that the first should be sufficient, and the second advisory. However, in a world of many devices and relative pixels sizing, I'm not sure how you would define sufficient? I.e. How big is enough?

In relation to success criteria, it isn't clear from the TF note which WCAG2 SC these apply to, it points to there being a gap, probably under WCAG2 2.4?

Kind regards,

-Alastair