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 13:41:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDazdzxHSjnLf7PxH=yq0ornZDm7Avm+AV5AQHUCTOgz4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, greggvan@umd.edu
Cc: jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Another option for an exception to address Gregg's concern could be

- the target in part on a group of more than 10 navigation elements

The rationale being that if there are less than 10 links in the group there
is not much good ui rationale for squishing links together... but when
there are a lot of links then the user without a disability is being
punished by the space because they have to scroll and links are not in view


On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 8:37 AM Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
wrote:

> Some evidence. I have gone through recent tests, picked nine sites and one
> page for each site, made screenshots, and checked where target size might
> be an issue:
>
> http://www.3needs.org/en/testing/target-size.html
>
> These are the nine most recent tests some of them not final conformance
> tests but design support tests, so I have not been cherry-picking. To be
> sure, these sites made an effort to be accessible. So they may be a fair
> representation of the site owners that are ether required by law to meet
> WCAG (or derivatives of WCAG).
>
> Result: In my sample of relatively recent sites, most seem to meet the
> target size SC already (or at least largely). Issues appear in submenus and
> a few times around breadcrumbs but these should be easy to fix.
>
> --
> Detlev Fischer
> testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
> Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg
>
> Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
> Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
>
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>
> David MacDonald schrieb am 29.05.2017 14:23:
>
> >
> > ​> ​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.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David MacDonald
> >
> >
> >
> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> >
> > Tel:  613.235.4902
> >
> > LinkedIn  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> >
> >
> > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
> >
> > 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 <
> http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu
> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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/ <
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/wikipedia-44px-target-test.png>
> 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 <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 28, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Detlev Fischer <
> detlev.fischer@testkreis.de <mailto: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
> <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu> >:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> On May 28, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto: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
> >>>>
> >>>
>
-- 

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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

twitter.com/davidmacd

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
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 13:42:19 UTC

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