W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2017

Re: CFC: Target Size and Target Size (no exception) SC

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 08:23:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYxcmByX7pnf-a-p+nPe0wr+EyY0uEEzW_e2LXR2yhCoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
​> ​look at the side menu - before and after.  we can do this - but I think
we are just dooming 2.1 to be referred to at the unrealistic guidelines.

I have to agree it's a huge ask. Originally it was a mobile requirement,
which everyone agrees on, but we couldn't define mobile, and so it morphed
into desktop with the additional reason that it may help those who have
trouble activating interactive elements on desktop.

However, the user testing we looked at indicated that most people with
significant dexterity problems needed target sizes of 100px.

I had proposed exceptions for both inline links and groups of navigation
links,  with the goal of balancing the huge UI burden on the author against
the burden of zooming into navigation groups (which is less of a burden
than zooming into text).

Two ways out of this iscould be

1) to add an exception for navigation groups.
2) base the requirement on breakpoints, CSS pixel width of the display,
which is a measurement that we are coalescing around.

Otherwise, we may want to punt it to Silver.

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902



GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

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

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>

> well I just looked at a bunch and I guess we have different sites
> but even on the sites I visited — making all the navigation that large
> would mess up all the nav bars both vertically and horizontally.
> It makes the sites look horrid.   and take a menu that fits on one screen
> and spans it across multiple. (which is bad UX)
> Here is an example from Alastair
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/wikipedia-44px-target-test.png
> look at the side menu - before and after.
> we can do this - but I think we are just dooming 2.1 to be referred to at
> the unrealistic guidelines.
> *g*
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
> On May 28, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> wrote:
> Gregg,
> It is not "a few non text links" - I have not made the count right now
> actoss sites that I have tested but my guess is that between 60 and 99 % of
> links on pages that I come across in testing are not inline text links.
> Most are
> - main navigation (including drop-down menus)
> - service navigation
> - site map (commonly in a footer section)
> - teaser links to content
> - social media links
> - links in sidebars (often with images) to supplementary info
> ...and so on. Note that many are of these are text links (e.g. in menus)
> but would not fall under the inline text link exception. Sire, you do have
> inline text inks here and there but they generally both less numerous and
> less critical.
> I simply do not get it why you don't see the huge benefit for users who,
> once this new SC makes the most frequently used and most critical targets
> larger, will often not have to zoom in ( and likely vertically scroll) to
> recognize and hit a target with confidence.
> Detlev
> Sent from phone
> Am 28.05.2017 um 22:43 schrieb Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>:
> On May 28, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> wrote:
> This SC while applicable on all touch screens is most likely on small
> screen devices.  Today, almost all mobile browsers do not support reflow on
> zoom.  So small screen touch devices go into a mode that adds horizontal
> scrolling when enlarged.  So you are suggesting that it’s ok for users to
> have to initiate a pinch zoom, then scroll the screen and then tap the
> target in order to get a target that is large enough for them.  I don’t
> think this is very practical.
> That is not what I am saying.    That is what THE SC is saying.
> This SC says  ‘Make all the non-text targets big — but all the hypertext
> links on the page are exempt —  so the person will have to zoom it in order
> to use any hypertext link’.
> What I am saying is that if Zoom is good enough for all the links on the
> page  — why are we requiring that the few non-text targets be large ?
> g
Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 12:23:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:13 UTC