RE: Keeping Target Size (Enhanced)? Even with 22px?

First: isn't it too late to start thinking about this approach although there may be lots of good in it
Second: the 22 CSS pixels is still unfounded, no research there, the reason of just cut 44 in half is not very defendable

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [] 
Sent: zondag 21 januari 2018 17:34
Subject: Re: Keeping Target Size (Enhanced)? Even with 22px?

On 21/01/2018 02:18, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
> As the subject indicates, I’m just wondering if we are really keeping 
> Target Size (Enhanced) going to CR?  At the very least, it should be 
> renamed since it is no longer an enhanced version of anything.
> The CFC covered the options at AA, but we still have open issues at 
> AAA and no consensus on their resolutions.  Since much of the 
> discussion there, and lack of resolution, was around the defensibility 
> of 22 CSS pixels as a viable measure, and that is still used in the 
> AAA version, I was assuming it was going to be dropped as well.
> Personally, I’d be fine with keeping it so long as we change it to 
> simply having an exception for being within a block of text (i.e. no 
> 22 by 22 CSS pixel requirement).
> Sorry to be the negative Nancy…

I'd have less of a problem with a AAA that doesn't have to contort itself with various exemptions. However, going back to some of the original wording that was discussed way back at the beginning of this SC's journey, I'd have a counter proposal:

Success Criterion 2.5.4 Target Size (Level AAA)

The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels for coarse pointers and 22 by 22 CSS pixels for fine pointers
[ed: both coarse and fine would need to be defined in glossary, borrowing the definition from CSS 4 Interaction Media Queries - and]
except when:

Equivalent: The target is available through an equivalent link or control on the same page that has a sufficiently large target size;
Inline: The target is in a sentence or block of text;

The understanding document would then go into detail about some of the 
technologies available to determine whether the user has a device with a 
coarse or fine pointer (e.g. CSS 4 Interaction Media Queries, listening 
to actual events being fired using something like, or situations where authors 
can know for a fact that only one input modality will be present (such 
as a locked-down kiosk/atm scenario, where it's known that only a 
touchscreen will ever be used). But then understanding should also 
hammer the point home that authors should not make assumptions (e.g. 
when the page loads, the user may start using a mouse, but then may 
switch to a 'secondary' touchscreen). If in doubt, offer an explicit 
switching mechanism (similar to what Office 2013 does, allowing user to 
switch interface between mouse- and touch-optimized interface). And if 
all else fails, assume that at any point a user may switch to a coarse 
interface, and just stick with always aiming for the larger target.

Patrick H. Lauke | |

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

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 Sunday, 21 January 2018 16:47:36 UTC