Re: CFC - Target Size AA and AAA, and comment responses

Even though the CFC on this has passed (was busy on project work to 
follow through), and the SC was passed anyway, would still be interested 
in some actual answers or justifications to the queries below.

P

On 28/11/2017 20:39, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 20:01, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
>> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday November 30th at 2:45pm Boston time.
>>
>> The Working Group has discussed changes to Target Size (AA) and Target 
>> Size (Enhanced) (AAA), as well as approving comment responses for 
>> these SC.
>>
>> The specific changes are detailed in this pull 
>> request: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/592
>>
>> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/11/28-ag-minutes.html#item05, 
>> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/28-ag-minutes.html - item06 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2017/11/28-ag-minutes.html#item06>, 
>> https://www.w3.org/2017/11/28-ag-minutes.html#item07
>>
>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have 
>> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 
>> “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know 
>> before the CfC deadline.
> 
> Still of the belief that, though better than before, this SC at AA is 
> problematic.
> 
> Circling back to the discussions in the call, per the minutes, it's 
> noted that 44x44 / 48x48 are industry standards. That is true, but I'd 
> add that these are standards (which are worded more as recommendations - 
> for instance, Apple's HIG state "Try to maintain a minimum tappable area 
> of 44pt x 44pt for all controls", emphasis on "Try to") that are mainly 
> aimed at native applications on touch devices. Native applications do 
> not provide pinch-zoom, whereas web content does. Even in desktop 
> browsers, with a mouse, users that have trouble confidently activating a 
> link/control can full-page-zoom and make the targets bigger. In both 
> cases, web content users have built-in mechanisms to enlarge small 
> targets. While designing targets to be "large enough" in the first place 
> is a great usability advice, I'm still not seeing specifically why it 
> needs to be a hard pass/fail criterion. Further, noting that even Apple, 
> Google, etc themselves break their own guidelines/suggestions when they 
> deem it necessary/applicable.
> 
> Does the SC, as worded now, allow for an interface/site to provide 
> different interfaces, one of which has the required target sizes? If a 
> site implemented, say, media queries that check for the presence of 
> coarse and fine pointers, and only showed smaller targets if no coarse 
> pointer (e.g. touchscreen) was detected, would it pass or fail? If a 
> site offered an explicit setting or switch to go into a "touch-friendly" 
> layout, would that be sufficient?
> 
> "The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not 
> modified by the author."
> 
> The simple act of defining a base font size for html/body would 
> constitute a modification by the author, no? While yes, the 
> understanding document can clarify when/how/what "modified by the 
> author" means, I'm worried that the normative SC text is fairly wooly 
> and unclear here and quite open to very wide, as well as very narrow, 
> interpretation.
> 
> "A particular presentation of the target is <a>essential</a> to the 
> information being conveyed"
> 
> What scenarios are there? A pixel-hunting game (where only a tiny area 
> in a large image is clickable)? Other?
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 5 December 2017 13:15:57 UTC