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: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 19:37:06 +0200
Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Message-Id: <8920E232-13B8-4913-ABA1-02BFBEE84A04@testkreis.de>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Hi Gregg,

I think it is important to keep in mind that the new SCs will be applied to *new* content (relaunches, new sites) - 2 years from now.
I don”t think it is reasonable to expect that legacy sites will meet WCAG 2.1. Sites won’t be required to do so even where laws such as in the UK point to the latest version of the standard, as Alistair Duggin has clarified on this list, following my question. These sites (and I assume the sites you were thinking of) should be fine if they continue to meet 2.0 (if they do).

I believe with the exceptions that we have, target size can apply throughout. Surely, public comments wil show l if that stance is tenable.

The case of Google Docs, MS Office on web etc. and other ‘secondary UA’ living in the browser might be called out more expliitly if it is not already seen as covered under the exceptions "User agent control: The appearance of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified” or "Essential: A particular presentation of target is essential to the information being conveyed.”

You wrote

>>>>> 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)

I think it would be helpful if you could point to a few URLs where such things would happen (preferably sites meeting WCAG 2.0 today), and where an eventual  re-launch would struggle to meet the target size SC. I am genuinely curious to learn what sites you were thinking of. 

>>>>> Here is an example from Alastair
>>>>> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/ <https://alastairc.ac/tmp/> <https://alastairc.ac/tmp/wikipedia-44px-target-test.png <https://alastairc.ac/tmp/wikipedia-44px-target-test.png>> wikipedia-44px-target-test.png


The site you point to (Alastair”s example) is actually an example to the contrary: The Wikipedia redesign with increased line height in the navigation would work and be easy to implement. Rearranging the bulleted nav items so that you have groups of two, and not increasing line height in the text block under the Welcome message (these links are iexempted as they sit in a block of text) would reduce the vertical gain of the redesign. The side menu (containing, I note, more secondary links, not critical for the core use case of looking up a Wikipedia entry) sure would make users scroll more often, but has the benefit of being usable with touch. If compression is deemed important, authors would be free to resort to exception "Customizable: A mechanism is available to change the size of the target independent of the level of page magnification.” 

Detlev


> On 29 May 2017, at 18:52, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> 
> I think we need to keep in mind that we want 2.1 to be required - not just “good if you can do this”
> 
> for that to be true (for that to happen) we need to be sure that 2.1 CAN be applied on ALL sites.
> 
> 
> If we do,  then the question isnt if it works on one page per site 
> or even if it works on MOST sites
> 
> the question is    Will it work on ALL sites. 
> 
> and for ANY site that it doesn’t work
> can we figure out why it won’t work - and make that an exception
> OR
> do we want to say that that site just won’t be able to conform.
> 
> 
> We need to remember that:
> We can’t create a rule — that we want everyone to follow on every page (or we want people to REQUIRE for every page —  unless we know that everyone CAN follow it on EVERY page.
> otherwise we need to just have it be advice
> 
> Unfortunately  we can’t have it both ways.   (i.e. it doesn’t work EVERYWHERE but we want it to be REQUIRED) 
> 
> so the test is never "I can show where it works"
>  (if we want people to require 2.1 SC)  the test has to be  “no one can find a page where it doesn’t work (given our exceptions)"
> 
> 
> g 
> 
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu <mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 29, 2017, at 8:37 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de <mailto: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 <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 <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 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> <http://twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>> 
>>> 
>>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>> 
>>> 
>>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> <http://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 <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> <mailto: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/> <https://alastairc.ac/tmp/wikipedia-44px-target-test.png <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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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
> 


Received on Monday, 29 May 2017 17:37:40 UTC

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