Re: Issues with Target Size SC

> 22px for  less than 10 items, and exempt for more than 10.

I don't agree with this - why 10? Why not 8, or 12, or 25? Plucking a
random number out of the air makes no sense to me, and I'd prefer to remove
that condition unless you can provide a solid justification for that number.

Cheers!

JF

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> I’m fine with that approach as well obviously.  If we want the AAA version
> in as is, then I would just ask that the AGWG recognize that it would
> basically require blocks of text have 44 pixel line heights.
>
>
>
> PS – Detlev, I think tenacity is a positive trait in the accessibility
> world, so no apology necessary ;).
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 8:18 AM
> *To:* Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>;
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Subject:* 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion