Re: Target Size SCs issue feedback

Hi All,

FWIW, I too have remaining concerns about any requirement that mandates
line-heights of 44px as being, in practice, extremely problematic.

> Putting aside the unresolved issue of focus indicator confusion which
creates inaccessibility

It's worse than that - it could result in one target being partially
obscured by another at a higher z-index level, making the first target
potentially smaller than a native target (given the requirements for page
flow and content magnification we are also addressing).

> do you really expect authors to think about and test their content so
much that they will consider all possible viewports, zoom levels, text
adaptations, etc. when analyzing for potential overlap?

Exactly - I believe that when we say "testable", we also mean
pragmatically/practically testable, and having evaluators reducing the
width of a viewport incrementally by 1em width to check for text-link
overlap is taxing the credibility of the testablity here, even at AAA.

JF

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

>
> On 26/05/2017 15:53, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
> > Josh,
> >
> > ØSteve Repsher said:
> >>> The little testing it has undergone has turned up several issues,
> >>> namely focus highlights and >overlap, Which have the potential to end
> up creating significant inaccessibility.  However, if the technique is to
> use a 44 pixel line, then I’ll support it.
> >
> >> Thanks for the suggestion. In terms of your request for clarification
> but I see that Kathy did reply.
> >
> > To add some context to the sentence you quoted me on, I was talking
> > specifically about the CSS padding and negative margin technique that
> > had been proposed to handle links within blocks of text.  Yes, Kathy
> > replied that this would no longer be used for the AA version, but my
> > objection is for the AAA version.  What technique do we plan to
> > document to make 44 pixel targets within blocks of text?
> >
> > I find it hard to believe I’m the only one not concerned about this,
> > but perhaps I’m missing where on list or on GitHub the issues with
> > this technique were thoroughly discussed and resolved.  Yes, it’s AAA,
> > but it’s still an SC that needs accessible techniques.
>
> The hardline answer would be: you want AAA? Avoid having touch targets
> that are too small.
> [Steve] Again my concern is the technique, not the SC itself.  If we want
> to say AAA conformance means 44 pixel lines, then okay.
>
> If you have content where there are lots of links in inline content which
> may potentially overlap, this may require you to either create some
> alternative (like a separate list of all links, as a conformant additional
> alternative), or to rethink how you present your content, or...
> [Steve] You can't have potential overlap if padding and margins are
> positive, and that's my point.  Putting aside the unresolved issue of focus
> indicator confusion which creates inaccessibility, do you really expect
> authors to think about and test their content so much that they will
> consider all possible viewports, zoom levels, text adaptations, etc. when
> analyzing for potential overlap?  That doesn't seem feasible to me unless
> we're also going to produce a tool to do that for them, which I'd argue is
> practically (and perhaps even theoretically) impossible.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion