W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:01:44 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP96E6F66F1B035974946923FEE80@phx.gbl>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
If there were break points there could be different requirements for each
one... so it could be x%, y%, z% based on the break point.

I actually like better the idea of having actual size minimums based on
break points which was my second suggestions in that email.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> Not sure I understand
>
> How does a requirement for a percentage ensure that people with physical
> disabilities would be able to use something.
>
> and why should someone with a 24 inch touchscreen have to create content
> with buttons that were 20% of the screen  (monster buttons) when 20% of the
> width of an iPhone 4 screen would be very small buttons for someone with a
> physical disability.
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> *gregg*
>
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 6:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> It possibly could be percentages?
>
> Or
>
> we perhaps better, we could define several screen size ranges and base
> dimensions on those screen sizes.
> -If a screen is between x by y size and W by Y dimensions then buttons
> size would need to be A and B and space between links would need to be
> -If a screen is between W by X size  and dimensions then buttons size
> would need to be B and C... etc.
>
> I think if we treat it like common responsive design break point ranges we
> could come up with common screen sizes (e.g. Small mobile, big mobile,
> tablet) and actually give some concrete advice for each of those sizes,
> which could be measurable and therefore a success criteria... I think if we
> are going to do something useful for authors and policy makers, we have to
> be more clear than the measurement of "adequate".
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I don’t see how they can ever be success criteria - since we would have
>> to specify physical dimensions — and we don’t know the device size.   are
>> you thinking we assume this is a tablet or something and base all
>> recommendations on that?   With some set resolution?        Or do we assume
>> that we can rescale content to force a physical size regardless of screen
>> size and resolution?
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> *gregg*
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:44 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to choose wording that could eventually become a success
>> criteria rather than techniques. The principles of enough space to click
>> without hitting something else, and a big enough target  seem foundational.
>> The word "adequate" is pretty subjective, I wonder if there is a range of
>> measurements we can provide as were discussed at the face to face.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  *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
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>> 1)      Does each technique make sense to you?  (for now these are just
>>> titles, so it can be a challenge to be certain)
>>>
>>> 2)      Do you agree that the referenced success criteria is applicable
>>> to each suggested technique, or that the technique is applicable to the SC)?
>>>
>>> 3)      Do you think that there is another technique that this might
>>> better be an example for instead of a technique on its own?
>>>
>>> 4)      Do you think that each is likely to be sufficient or advisory?
>>>
>>> 5)      Are there other techniques that you can think of that address
>>> the SC in the mobile space?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>
>>> Adobe Systems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpatrick@adobe.com>
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>>
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 19:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:19 UTC