Re: Issues with Target Size SC

I agree the >10 exception would be hard to implement in real world web
design, and yes it's arbitrary. 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.

If we do 22px for groups of links then its somewhat mitigated.

I am nervous about the implications on mega menus where there are tons of
links, but lets see what the world says.

I think we should keep the idea of an exception for more than "X" links in
our back pocket or in a boneyard, in case of significant push back over
navigation implications.

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 Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> *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/guideline
>> s/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/wb
>> s/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/guideline
>> s/#target-size <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21
>> /target-size_ISSUE-60/guidelines/#target-size>
>> >
>> > https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/target-size_ISSUE-60/guideline
>> s/#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
>
>