Re: Spacing Between Touch Targets

Wilco has suggested this rewording:

"For each target, there is an area of the display of 44 by 44 CSS pixels 
that includes it, and no other targets, except when:"

This is technically precise but is missing the critical term spacing 
from the SC (draft) name. I also think this wording is quite hard to parse.

How about:

"The dimension of the area of a target and any spacing around it is at 
least 44px height and 44 width except when:"

This could hold regardless of whether targets are adjacent or not.
There might be value in a definition of spacing that clarifies that 
spacing is inactive, i.e. does not contain other targets,.

Best,
Detlev

Am 09.04.2020 um 11:39 schrieb Wilco Fiers:
> Hey Alastair,
>
> > 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,*”.
>
>
> I think that would be much better, yes.
>
>
> > *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?
>
>
> That reads the same to me as the current one. The issue is that if two 
> elements are on the same x-axis, there is no space between them on the 
> y-axis. To me, that means the vertical space is 0, and if the elements 
> have a height of 33px, they both fail, regardless of how much 
> horizontal space is between them. Again, I get that that's not the 
> intent, but that's what I read here.
>
> I think the way this should be phrased is like this:
>
> For each target, there is an area of the display of 44 by 44 CSS 
> pixels that includes it, and no other targets, except when:
>
>
> W
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:42 PM Alastair Campbell 
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
Testkreis
Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites