Re: New Thread: Changes to Target Size for Issue 631

> IMO we cannot mandate [44x44] without solid exceptions due to issues with inline links and menu items etc. Unless it was possible to square the circle with exceptions for these types.



The current issue seems to be squaring:



  *   The user need for 44x44 links (at least, preferably 100x100 or more from the research).
  *   Getting push back from making most text links fail, which puts focus on exceptions and rational.



I agree with Steve (and Pat, and Kathy) that where we’ve ended up doesn’t meet the user need, and also it is overly complex.



The best rational for the text-link exception is basically “because that’s what links are on the web”. Is that ever going to be good enough? Or will we keep circling around it? I’ve tried to present pixel values based on default font-size, it doesn’t seem to get traction.



I think Alex had a good point about spacing between links being an important factor that we haven’t accounted for. My personal site (alastairc.ac) at small widths makes a good case study:

  *   The three buttons at the top are about 110px x 44px (accidentally)
  *   The text-links in lists underneath are 21px tall, with plenty of space between them.



On a touch screen, you can tap between the links and the device guesses which one you meant, it is as-though they are larger links without needing to change their actual size.



We are complexly missing this factor at the moment, putting more burden on authors than necessary, and at the same time not meeting the user-need!



Overall, I’m inclined to leave the AA version of this for the next iteration, let’s work in the spacing factor for next time.



-Alastair