Re: Problem with an implementation pass for Target Size

Ok, I gather there is consensus the canonical result should be fail, so 
I've updated it. It brings us down to one pass for Target Size at the 
moment.

Lisa has pretty minimal availability this week due to Passover.

Michael


On 04/04/2018 4:23 PM, Marc Johlic wrote:
> I agree with Jake (after much discussion at the F2F).  Unfortunately, 
> the majority, in this case, consisted of me, Kathy, and Bruce - all 
> testing the Lego site at roughly the same time and comparing notes 
> during the F2F.  The discussions with Jake came later in the afternoon 
> that day.  Sooooo - I suppose we should go in and change our 
> evaluations for 2.5.3 Lego??
>
> This is why, last Thursday, my understanding was that Lisa was going 
> to update her Coga Personalization demo page with some extra padding 
> around the form inputs and controls - so that it would pass 2.5.3.  
> However, I haven't seen any responses to any of the notes sent her way 
> since last Thursday.  Does anyone have a direct line to Lisa?  This 
> could be a 5-minute fix and a 1-minute test.
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/implementation_experience?implementation_id=169
>
> Thanks,
> Marc
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org 
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     I went with a "majority rules" approach to recording the canonical
>     result, and did not evaluate the page myself. As such, Jake's
>     perspective could be right, but I'm not prepared to judge it
>     myself. This is the reason, though, we have a manual rather than
>     an automated determination of the canonical result, and if the
>     consensus is it should be changed, we can change it. It will mean
>     we'll need to find another pass for target size. Michael
>
>
>     On 03/04/2018 2:30 PM, Abma, J.D. (Jake) wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Michael / all,
>>
>>     In the call I heard that 2.5.3: Target Size was passed for the
>>     Lego site, can anyone explain to me why?
>>
>>     https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/evaluate_central?implementation_id=138
>>     <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG21/CR/evaluate_central?implementation_id=138>
>>
>>
>>     My comment was: It fails smaller viewports where the next /
>>     previous buttons  (in the canvas) are clearly less than 44X44
>>     (check mobile or make viewport small)
>>
>>     As far as I know Conformance is like this:
>>
>>     1.Full pages: Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web
>>     page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is
>>     excluded.
>>
>>     2.Web page: a non-embedded resource obtained from a single URI
>>     using HTTP plus any other resources that are used in the
>>     rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent
>>
>>     a.Note 1: Although any "other resources" would be rendered
>>     together with the primary resource, they would not necessarily be
>>     rendered simultaneously with each other.
>>
>>     b.Note 2: For the purposes of conformance with these guidelines,
>>     a resource must be "non-embedded" within the scope of conformance
>>     to be considered a Web page.
>>
>>     3.As we can see the Lego site only has 1 URI and an embedded
>>     canvas element which needs to be fully accessible and doesn’t
>>     contain it’s own URIs.
>>
>>     So we have a fail and not a pass.
>>
>>     It’s just like we have a page / 1 URI with a collapsible, or
>>     accordion, or modal or whatever component / element and when you
>>     click on it, it opens or reveals other content.
>>
>>     That complete component / widget / structure needs to be
>>     accessible because it’s on the page, and not only the loading /
>>     beginning state and not “not what’s in the collapsed content”.
>>
>>     It’s the same for the canvas, just as it is when you’ll get a
>>     keyboard trap when clicking on the canvas buttons and you’re
>>     stuck we don’t say, “well, if you don’t click on the canvas
>>     element than you’re save so we pass it”.
>>
>>     So even though 4 people pass it I think they’re still wrong or
>>     please tell me otherwise.
>>
>>     Regards,
>>
>>     Jake Abma
>>
>>     Accessibility Lead ING
>>
>>     Product owner at Team A11Y
>>
>>     ING Nederland / CIO / Omnichannel / Experience
>>
>>     ACT C.02.406, Bijlmerdreef 24
>>
>>     Postbus 1800, 1000 BV Amsterdam
>>
>>     0031 (0)6 - 25 27 52 46
>>
>>     _jake.abma@ing.com <mailto:jake.abma@ing.com>___
>>
>>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>     ATTENTION:
>>     The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
>>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>