Re: Target size proposal

On 16/01/2018 22:47, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
>>From the call, Kathy's proposal was:
> 
> The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels or is at least 26 by 26 CSS pixels with 8 CSS pixels spacing between targets except when:
> 
> - Equivalent - The target is available through an equivalent link or control on the same page that is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels pixels or is at least 26 by 26 CSS pixels with 8 CSS pixels spacing between targets;

Is there the opportunity hear to expand, making it clear that having 
some form of setting (either as a switch in the page itself, or in some 
configuration/setup of the site) for the user to actively change targets 
to be "touch friendly" or similar also counts as equivalent? Or is this 
perhaps something that can be added to understanding? If I, as a user, 
actively select "make this site touch friendly" somehow and the same 
links and controls are now styled larger, does it count as equivalent 
(as it's the same link/control, just changed/adapted)?

> - Inline- The target is in a sentence or block of text;
> - User Agent Control - The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author.

As noted in the comment 
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/701#issue-288061298 what counts as 
"modified by the author"? Even just tweaking something like the base 
font size on html or body by an infinitesimal fraction changes how the 
user agent renders the target size.

Many other things can influence how large something renders. If the 
link/control is contained inside a parent element, and that element is 
set to a specific width, the element (and its target size) will be 
modified accordingly.

In short, it feels like almost any styling, anywhere within a document, 
relating to font sizing, widths, heights, margins, paddings, 
positioning, use of grid/flexbox, etc can potentially have an impact on 
the rendered target size. So situations where a target size is truly NOT 
modified by the author would be very rare?

> - Essential - A particular presentation of the target is essential to the information being conveyed
> 
> And (possibly) another exception such as:
> - Viewport size: The viewport size has a length (height or width) of at least 1000 CSS pixels.

As noted in the other thread, I'd strongly object to this sort of gross 
simplification, tying viewport size to likelihood of coarse input vs 
fine input.

Additionally, would this also mean that as soon as a viewport is larger 
than 1000 CSS pixels, sites would be fine to make their links/controls 
as infinitesimally small as they wish? Even assuming the "if larger than 
1000 CSS px = mouse user" generalisation were always true, does this not 
mean mouse users who may also have difficulty in accurately targetting 
and activation links/controls are simply ignored by this SC?

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, 16 January 2018 23:18:11 UTC