Re[2]: Keeping Target Size (Enhanced)? Even with 22px?

Could be just missed in the 'rumble' alright..

We can talk about this later on the call, thanks.

__
Joshue O Connor
Director / InterAccess.ie

------ Original Message ------
From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; "WCAG" 
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 23/01/2018 08:45:32
Subject: Re: Keeping Target Size (Enhanced)? Even with 22px?

>I have to admit I lost track of the AAA version of this one, but I had 
>thought it would be 44px without exception. Was that deemed too 
>difficult even at AAA?
>
>-Alastair
>
>
>From: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
>Date: Sunday, 21 January 2018 at 02:20
>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Subject: Keeping Target Size (Enhanced)? Even with 22px?
>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>Resent-Date: Sunday, 21 January 2018 at 02:19
>
>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…
>
>Steve Repsher
>Twitter<https://twitter.com/steverep> | 
>LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/steverepsherjr/> | 
>GitHub<https://github.com/steverep>
>