- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:51:21 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 11/01/2018 00:44, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > On 11/01/2018 00:23, Alex Li (CELA) wrote: > [...] >> If you have a reasonably recent version of Office desktop, you can see >> this in action by setting the spacing between targets to be optimized >> for mouse or touch. Switching to optimizing for touch keeps the touch >> targets the same size as before, but the space between them is >> increased. I don’t think our approach is “wrong”. But our approach >> does not meet the SC, at least by the letter… > > Unless I'm mistaken (testing in Word 2013) the clickable/tap-able part > of the controls is also enlarged when switching to from mouse to touch > optimized spacing, so arguably it does meet at least the spirit (if > perhaps not the hard numbers) of the SC. However, it does raise the question that I posed previously: do large enough target sizes always need to be there by default, or would a page/site that provides the user a mechanism to actively switch to "touch-optimized" sizes (or uses other mechanisms, such as detecting presence of a touchscreen - through JS, interaction media queries, etc) also pass the SC as it stands? Or should it have language along the lines of "a mechanism is available..."? 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 Thursday, 11 January 2018 00:51:44 UTC