RE: Spacing Between Touch Targets

  *   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,.

Hi Detlev, yes, having this clarification of what spacing means here is very important for understanding.  I now understand what is meant.

Jonathan

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:58 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Spacing Between Touch Targets

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]



--

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