Re: Issues with Target Size SC

I agree with both Steve and Gregg's objections and also agree with Detlev's
attempts to address them.

- Drop the AAA
- Make the requirement for groups of links (drop down menus, sidenavs,
footers etc.) 22px for  less than 10 items, and exempt for more than 10.

In the future it might be easier to tell when a user is trying to hit a
target with a fine or course pointer. Users who require large targets
because of significant dexterity disabilities generally need 100px so even
the 44px requirement would have minimal impact on that user group, but it
would break the existing desktop web.

Now the one implementation problem with more than 10 exemption is that a
lot of CMS environments don't know how many links will be in their menu.
But the 22px requirement is not onerous, so they'll probably just create
their menus with 22px space, so I think its OK.

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>

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> wrote:

> This is about our old friend SC #60 target size. Josh has started this
> thread a wghile back to deal with comments.
>
> We already had a RESOLUTION in the telco to include this SC in the next
> 2.1 draft, so there was (and I hope still is) significant support within
> the working group. This is not a lost cause.
>
> The resolution was then put on hold following comments in response to the
> CfC by Steve Repsher and Gregg.
>
> I would like to address these objections and in resolving these, manage to
> see target size included in the next 2.1 draft, so we will get more input
> in public comments.
>
> Here is the current SC target size wording:
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/
> guidelines/sc/21/target-size.html
>
> Here is the github issue:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/60
>
> Here are the survey results:
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#wbsq4/results
>
> Steve Repsher objected to the AAA version extending the SC to *all* links.
> My suggestion would be to drop the AAA version and focus on level AA,
> which exempts targets in inline text. This also removes Steve's concern
> with the 'CSS hack' technique drafted by Patrick.
>
> To address Gregg's concern that requiring the SC for menu lists conflicts
> with good usability and will more often force users to scroll to be able to
> reach targets (the example to demonstrate the negative effect was the
> Wikipedia start page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ), we could
> still consider an exception (such as requiring lower target height of, say,
> 22 CSS pixels) for vertical lists, possibly only long ones (I believe David
> has floated a figure of <10 items).
>
> Finally, I would like to point out that even though the SC would exempt
> inline links and unstyled HTML (e.g. checkboxes, selects) most controls
> appearing in modern web pages *are* covered, especially pertinent links in
> site navigation. I believe the benefits of bringing in target size
> requirements for users with motor impairments and low vision would still be
> significant.
>
> Sorry to be so tenacious.  Andrew, you are assigned to this SC. Can we
> take it up again in one of the next calls?
>
>
> Best,
> Detlev
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> Joshue O Connor schrieb am 29.06.2017 17:51:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Recently we had a CFC for Target Size
> >
> >
> > Survey results: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#
> wbsq4/results <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SCreview_May_17/#
> wbsq4/results>
> >
> > Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04 <
> https://www.w3.org/2017/05/23-ag-minutes.html#item04>
> >
> >
> > The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
> >
> > https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/
> guidelines/#target-size <https://rawgit.com/w3c/
> wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size>
> >
> > https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/
> guidelines/#target-size-no-exception <https://rawgit.com/w3c/
> wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size-all>
> >
> > We initially passed this CFC but there was an objection from Stephen
> Repsher
> > that I'd like us to address, as well as other substantive comments from
> GreggV.
> >
> > The chairs have decided to remove this SC from the editors draft while
> we address these
> > comments, so I'm starting this thread to do that.
> >
> > Steve, you made some comments:
> >
> > >I cannot live with the AAA version, or any version which plans to
> document a CSS hack as a viable technique for increasing target size (see
> #1).  >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.
> >
> > You also mentioned/wanted clarification on:
> >
> >> Can I assume that the CSS padding & negative margin technique <
> http://codepen.io/patrickhlauke/pen/aBNREe>  that had been proposed to
> meet this SC for links within blocks of text is being abandoned? [...]
> >>
> >> Yes, targets in blocks of text are excluded from the requirements
> >> [Steve] I’ll accept that “yes” for AA, but there is no such exception
> for AAA for which we still need to provide techniques.
> >
> > And there was a question about what constitutes a 'change' regarding the
> exception for user agent control.
> >
> > Apologies if I have not captured the gist of your thinking. Does this
> cover your concerns?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Joshue O Connor
> > Director | InterAccess.ie
> >
> >
>
>