RE: Issues with Target Size SC

> I'll still note that the technique is fine for situations where the density of links is very low

The tipping point for analysis of applicability occurs going from only 1 to 2 links, so I don't see how it would ever be a feasible or practical style to set.  Analysis is also not just a function of density, but anything that affects the physical placement of links relative to each other, including position and length of links in the block, container and/or viewport size, and font and text characteristics.  It would be dangerous to assume coverage of such variability.  Even if that could somehow be guaranteed, you'd still be left with odd decisions to be making, such as leaving the lonesome and free link to be 44px while the others need to be reduced to avoid overlap, or make them all consistent?

From a practical standpoint, I also don't know how this would work since it requires a very tight coupling between content and style.  Every writer's work would need to be analyzed via some infeasible script prior to publication, and then forced to alter links or perhaps use different CSS for each article..

Finally, the technique is never fine, as of now, for issues surrounding focus highlights.  That would involve getting all user agents to agree on a default and correct way to handle this situation, and to somehow distinguish it from other negative margin situations where padding may not be used to completely offset it.  Personally, I'd argue that highlighting the entire clickable area is more correct.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:01 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issues with Target Size SC

On 29/06/2017 19:15, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
> Thanks, Josh.  Yes, that’s a sufficient summary.  My objection is 
> really to the negative margin technique for increasing target size.  I 
> think we just need to acknowledge that it has significant issues which 
> have not been solved, and thus cannot be used to meet either the AA or 
> AAA version.  For links within blocks of text, this means requiring a 
> 44px font size at AAA.  I’d withdraw my objection if we fully withdraw 
> such a technique.

Although I'm in favor of dropping the SC / deferring it as a usability best practice (where it would then use language like "for critical/important controls", a vague restriction of scope which doesn't seem possible in normative WCAG language), I'll still note that the technique is fine for situations where the density of links is very low. 
For situations where you have many, or an unknown number, of links inline, other techniques need to be used instead / together with it (increased line height, for instance, which can still use increased vertical padding and negative margin to make the actual actionable area larger without needing an excessively large font size; providing a mechanism that separately lists all actionable links/controls inside a block of text; etc). Which technique is used will depend on content and context.

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

Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2017 19:08:52 UTC