RE: CFC - Target Size (2 options)

+1 to Katie’s comments. I am particularly concerned by the trade-off that favours timeliness over quality, the lack of consensus, and that fact that we’re trying to resolve very challenging accessibility issues – in a hurry – by extending WCAG 2.0.

At this point, I would find it hard to recommend WCAG 2.1 to colleagues. There are aspects of it that I could strongly recommend, but not the specification in its entirety, either as it currently exists or as it will exist after the CFCs are decided.

From: Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 11:12 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Target Size (2 options)

-1 to both,

Leonie's comment of 'death by a thousand paper cuts' is unfortunately too true about so many of these SCs
because of prioritizing timeline over quality - we have lost our focus in this frenzy. The reason the comments are so hard to address other than just changing the SC to satisfy them, is that we do not agree, do not
have consensus amongst ourselves as to the goal of each one before exposing for comments at this point. I am concerned. As another commented, I do not want to be the one spitting in the soup.

But this isn't soup, it can be a highly important international standard. Take 3 deep breaths.

My suggestion is that we take a pause. Find consensus among ourselves by seeing if the each SC, as worded, is meant to achieve the original goal for the user need that prompted it coming to us from the 3 task forces.
Rework wording to address that need, taking into account issued comments, and come to agreement on each one. And then, we have to try a real stab at internationalization for relevant SCs that need it.

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea

Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)

703-371-5545

ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
-1 to the first option
0 to the second.

I could live with the second option, and on Steve’s point:

> The first question is simply why would a person with a disability have more success hitting a target of 26x26 with 8 spacing (pass) than hitting a 43x43 target with 7 spacing (fail)?

If you had a list of links which were plenty wide enough, but 28px high with 8px spacing, you have 36px between the middle of each target.

Touch devices have algorithms that help you select things, so spacing acts as a increase in the size of the touch target.

Having said that, I don’t think we’ve bottomed out the effects there, or come up with defendable values yet, or worked out if that really helps the author achieve certain interfaces, which is why I can’t +1 it.

-Alastair


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________