RE: Target size proposal

+1 to Patrick on the 1000px

Also the 1000px which was mentioned on the fly but not well thought through raise more practical questions where the viewport is smaller than 1000px on desktop and zoomed versions.

> 44 by 44 CSS pixels pixels or is at least 26 by 26 CSS pixels with 8 CSS pixels spacing between targets;

The gap between 34 and 44 is not explainable. As from my previous response,  link targets in a list with no spacing between and 38px height will fail while  link targets in a list only 26px height with 8px spacing will pass?
Also the spacing is not clear what is exactly meant. Most designers don't want spacing between target, or do we mean padding (as we use it in CSS instead of margin...?!)
Also we should look at the height in menu's OUTSIDE of main/mega menu's as there are lots of other ones affected.

-----------
> 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?
-----------

The 1000px which was mentioned on the fly but not well thought through. 









-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: woensdag 17 januari 2018 0:18
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 07:15:29 UTC