RE: Spacing Between Touch Targets

Hi Wilco,

Sorry for the delay, even on lockdown having a holiday it is quite tricky to get on email thanks to the kids!

> “region of the display that will accept a pointer action," -- This is the definition
… The way I read this, an interactive area is an example of a target; but this doesn't say that all targets are interactive areas. The part that I see as defining "target" does not say anything needs to happen in response to a pointer action.

To me, “accept a pointer action” means it does something with it.

Of course anywhere on the screen can be clicked/tapped, but if nothing is done with it (the “accept”), then it is not relevant.

Still, if it helps avoid confusion, we very much want to keep backwards compatibility (with the intent). We could create an errata, my proposal for that would be:
“region of the display that will accept a pointer action to trigger a function,”.


> What I'm suggesting is that the way the SC is intended to read isn't the only way this can be read; I tried, and I don't see how the intended reading can be understood from the language of the proposed SC.

If it is any consolation I’ve tried reading it another way, and I’ve not managed to yet.


> there just needs to be some space of 44x44 around the target that doesn't include any other targets. Is that right?

It is the combined size + space that needs to be 44px. How about I try a variation to see if that makes a difference?

Current:
Adjacent targets, combined with spacing between targets, have a minimum height and minimum width of at least 44 CSS pixels each except when:

Alternative 1:
Targets with an adjacent target have a minimum height of at least 44 CSS pixels including spacing, and a minimum width of 44 CSS pixels including spacing, except when:

To me that says the same thing, but perhaps that’s makes a difference in reading?


> I'd still much prefer this be written in terms of a circle with a 44px diameter, and not as a square. Fingertips aren't square after all

We have discussed that, but it leads to odd results when you have large & small targets next to each other.
Also, if the circles are 44px wide the measure of (effectively) bounding boxes around a circle should still work. I’m not sure it works effectively the other way around (always using a circle to test what is mostly rectangles).

Cheers,

-Alastair