Re: Issues with Target Size SC

If this is what it takes, I can live with removing that somewhat arbitrary number and go for an exception that asks for a min height of 22px in vertical navigation lists (may need a slightly different expression). 

Thinking about it, having that number would be difficult not only because it seems arbitrary. In drop-down navigation menus you quite often have submenus with less than 10 and others with more than 10 items, and it seems clear that we wouldn't want to ask designers render them differently depending on length.
Detlev

Sent from phone

> Am 20.07.2017 um 20:47 schrieb John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>:
> 
> > 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
>>  
>> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>> LinkedIn 
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>> GitHub
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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