Re: Target spacing refinement

*For all adjacent targets, the farthest point of one target is at least 24
CSS pixels away from the other target, except if:*

I see what you're saying. Definitely agree that the understanding document
will help clarify. The current wording (above) still remains ambiguous with
level 1 confusion of what is 'one' and what is 'other' and level 2 runs
into the same problem as the second wording of not specifying where on the
'other target' and might be interpreted as picking one point.

How's this?

*For each target, the farthest point on the target is at least 24 CSS
pixels away from any point on each adjacent target, except if : *



On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:38 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:

> Sorry, accidental send....
>
> *The distance between the farthest point from a given target to any point
> on all adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, except if:*
>
> The problem here is that it now suggests to pick one point in the target
> that is furthest away from every adjacent target, instead of picking a
> different point for each adjacent target. I understand the lack of
> specificity in what I'm suggesting, but this language is accurate. I think
> the way to create more clarity on how to test this is better done in the
> understanding document.
>
> Wilco
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 5:24 PM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Sukriti,
>> I looked at phrasing the SC the way you suggest before:
>>
>> *The distance between the farthest point from a given target to any point
>> on all adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, except if:*
>> The problem
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *For all adjacent targets, the farthest point of one target is at least
>>> 24 CSS pixels away from the other target, except if:*
>>>
>>> The language here is pretty confusing - we need to be more clear about
>>> what is 'one target' and what is 'other target'. Here's a crack at one
>>>
>>> *The distance between the farthest point from a given target to any
>>> point on all adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, except if:*
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:30 AM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, we could even consider making diameter a defined term, thus
>>>> making those measurements normalized.
>>>> Michael Gower
>>>> Senior Consultant in Accessibility
>>>> IBM Design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
>>>> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
>>>> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:        Michael Gower/CanWest/IBM
>>>> To:        Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Sarah Horton <
>>>> sarah.horton@gmail.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <
>>>> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
>>>> Date:        2020/11/19 07:27 AM
>>>> Subject:        Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Target spacing refinement
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Suktriti, I think the various methods of calculating the diameter of
>>>> shapes (rectangle, triangle) can be provided in the Understanding document,
>>>> including for irregular shapes.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the language Wilco put forward (and for which I have
>>>> suggested minor edits) would replace the language you have listed. The
>>>> preamble would become the following (with the addition of a new diameter
>>>> bullet)
>>>>
>>>> *For all adjacent targets, the farthest point of one target is at least
>>>> 24 CSS pixels away from the other target, except if:*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gower
>>>> Senior Consultant in Accessibility
>>>> IBM Design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
>>>> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
>>>> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:        Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
>>>> To:        Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
>>>> Cc:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Sarah Horton <
>>>> sarah.horton@gmail.com>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, "WCAG
>>>> list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>>> Date:        2020/11/19 07:14 AM
>>>> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: Target spacing refinement
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Alaistar, Wilco, Detlev and Michael for all the examples,...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This Message Is From an External Sender*
>>>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Alaistar, Wilco, Detlev and Michael for all the examples,
>>>> those are incredibly helpful! While I like the approach of diameters from a
>>>> mathematical standpoint, it might be confusing when implementing as a
>>>> developer, given most targets are confined in rectangular spaces, even if
>>>> the visible targets might be irregularly shaped. This was brought up before
>>>> and the group decided not to pursue that route for similar reasons. I have
>>>> one small edit to #5 to clarify where on the adjacent target. The SC reads,
>>>> where "from the closest edge" is the new text :
>>>>
>>>> *For each target, the distance from the closest edge of each adjacent
>>>> target to the farthest edge of the current target is at least 24 CSS pixels
>>>> except when*”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Michael Gower <
>>>> *michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>>> Wilco and Detlev, thanks for working up another treatment. I agree with
>>>> Wilco that the parenthetical wording isn't required (it can be clarified in
>>>> the Understanding), so we end up with
>>>> *For all adjacent targets, the distance from the farthest point of one
>>>> target is at least 24 CSS pixels away from the other target, except if:*
>>>>
>>>>    - *Diameter**: The smallest diameter is at least 24 CSS pixels;*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe this rewording could even be further reduced by having
>>>> "distance from the" removed, to become
>>>> *For all adjacent targets, the farthest point of one target is at least
>>>> 24 CSS pixels away from the other target, except if:*
>>>>
>>>> Wilco, thanks for all those examples. My only request going forward if
>>>> you ever go to this trouble again, that you label or otherwise provide a
>>>> key for your expected outcome. (made up example: 'All example Ds should
>>>> fail'). That would help each of us scan to see if we're in agreement on
>>>> that outcome, and then scan to see what the real outcome was. IMO, a matrix
>>>> of examples like this would be beneficial in the Understanding document.
>>>>
>>>> Sarah, I echo Alastair's comments on size. For example, those little Xs
>>>> in the corners of dialogs are universal (and have another mechanism for
>>>> dismissal on the desktop, via the keyboard) and if we come up with wording
>>>> that fails them, we would have a hard time getting traction.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gower
>>>> Senior Consultant in Accessibility
>>>> IBM Design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
>>>> *gowerm@ca.ibm.com* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
>>>> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:        Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
>>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> To:        Sarah Horton <*sarah.horton@gmail.com*
>>>> <sarah.horton@gmail.com>>
>>>> Cc:        Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>>,
>>>> "WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <
>>>> *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>> Date:        2020/11/19 04:58 AM
>>>> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] RE: Target spacing refinement
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sarah, We do have an SC that addresses target size, but it is...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This Message Is From an External Sender*
>>>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sarah,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We do have an SC that addresses target size, but it is at AAA. This is
>>>> the “other” SC that allows more flexibility so is aiming at AA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we try and incorporate a minimum size as well as size+ spacing into
>>>> one SC, I think that would make it more convoluted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, if the user-need is met by targets+spacing (as described in the
>>>> previous email), we would get significant push-back on asking authors to
>>>> spend lots of time doing things that don’t actually help users.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the need, but we also have to note that it conflicts with
>>>> other needs, such as some people with low-vision (
>>>> *https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1381*
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1381>) and the ability to create
>>>> information-dense interfaces. We’ve reduced the size requirement to
>>>> compromise, it’s then a balance between competing requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With user-group conflicts the better approach is often personalisation
>>>> options rather than author requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the question becomes: Is this SC a baseline worth having?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Sarah Horton <*sarah.horton@gmail.com* <sarah.horton@gmail.com>>
>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* 19 November 2020 11:22
>>>> *To:* Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
>>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>>;
>>>> WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <
>>>> *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Target spacing refinement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Without an SC that addresses minimum target size I think this target
>>>> spacing SC is going to end up confusing and convoluted, and will not
>>>> address the real and significant user need for a minimum target size.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about trying for two new SCs, one for target size and one for
>>>> target spacing, either as part of the WCAG 2.2 effort or in whatever comes
>>>> next (2.3 or 3.0)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Alastair Campbell <
>>>> *acampbell@nomensa.com* <acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > The only two that I question are A4 and D1. Those are just so
>>>> small... If we added an absolute minimum diameter of 12px for every target
>>>> those two would fail without changing any of the other ones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Part of the reasoning for this SC was that, in touch-scenarios, the
>>>> devices use heuristics to guess which thing you meant to tap. I.e. if you
>>>> tap reasonably close to a link it generally works because the device finds
>>>> the nearest link.  However, if you have small links close to each other
>>>> that heuristic can make the wrong choice because you accidentally tapped
>>>> closer to an adjacent target.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s why it is size+spacing rather than just size, and why we weren’t
>>>> trying to set a minimum size as such. (Although it Patrick were reading
>>>> this, he’d pipe in with “what about mouse users?”, which is fair, but it’s
>>>> hard to accomplish everything in one SC.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, I’m worried about adding complexity to (necessarily) convoluted
>>>> SC text…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>>
>>>> *Sent:* 19 November 2020 10:36
>>>> *To:* Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
>>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <
>>>> *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Target spacing refinement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Alastair,
>>>>
>>>> You are correct, I made a mistake on H3. There is just enough space for
>>>> the outer box to pass. I've fixed that, and added an example that's similar
>>>> but where the box is rounded (N1 - N4)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As for E3 and E4, I think it is okay for those to fail. They are more
>>>> difficult to hit than some of the other fails like G4 and H4. I think this
>>>> actually strikes a good balance. The only two that I question are A4 and
>>>> D1. Those are just so small... even if someone isn't likely to hit the
>>>> wrong thing, it'll be hard to hit. If we added an absolute minimum diameter
>>>> of 12px for every target those two would fail without changing any of the
>>>> other ones.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:04 AM Alastair Campbell <
>>>> *acampbell@nomensa.com* <acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> HI Wilco,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s great! Thanks for putting that together.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Unfortunately, none of the proposals actually gets all of them right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we might need to discuss ‘right’ in this context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The previous wording from the FPWD did allow examples like E3/E4
>>>> assuming there were no other targets to consider:
>>>>
>>>> <image007.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But is that a good thing? The newer wording means that the proximity of
>>>> the small targets to another target causes a fail. I think that aligns with
>>>> the intent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we get down to the overlapping examples I’m not sure that
>>>> interpretation is correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Taking H3 as an example:
>>>>
>>>> <image008.png>
>>>>
>>>> The red square is 60 wide, the green is 24 + 12 left-padding, so there
>>>> is 24px of the parent on the right-hand side.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With a wording of “*For each target, the distance from each adjacent
>>>> target to the farthest edge of the current target is at least 24 CSS pixels
>>>> except when*”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The green target fits the exception bullet, but for the red one:
>>>>
>>>>    - We can consider the green target as “adjacent”;
>>>>    - The farthest edge of the red target from the green target is 24px
>>>>    – pass.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that H4 would fail, and I think most of the others. I’m not
>>>> clear about L2, I can’t see how much space is between those circles? For a
>>>> circle I think we have to treat the furthest point as the ‘edge’.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>>
>>>> *Sent:* 18 November 2020 16:16
>>>> *To:* Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
>>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
>>>> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
>>>> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Target spacing refinement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>
>>>> I did what I always do when rules get too complex. I write test cases.
>>>> Here's what I wrote. I used color gradients to indicate passes and fails.
>>>> Light green to dark green is passed, dark red to pink is fail.
>>>>
>>>> *https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow*
>>>> <https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, none of the proposals actually gets all of them right.
>>>> So this is going to need more work. I'll see if I can come up with a
>>>> proposal that gets all cases right. Probably worth for folks to have a
>>>> look, see if we're all in agreement on these. Maybe most noteworthy are E3
>>>> and E4. Those corner blocks pass with the currently published SC text, but
>>>> they fail in all of the new .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:41 PM Alastair Campbell <
>>>> *acampbell@nomensa.com* <acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tackling the second one:
>>>>
>>>> > *The distance from each target's mid-point to the mid-point of
>>>> adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, expect when...*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Measuring from mid-points allows for tiny targets next to larger ones,
>>>> e.g:
>>>>
>>>> <image009.png>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Although easier to understand (slightly), I don’t think it aligns to
>>>> the goal quite as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the re-write of option 5, I think it would need to start with the
>>>> thing you are evaluating, e.g:
>>>>
>>>> *For each target, the distance from each adjacent target to the
>>>> farthest edge of the current target is at least 24 CSS pixels except when:*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If others think that scans ok, I’m happy with that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the ‘objectives’, I think we can easily include that on the
>>>> new understanding docs at the top of the intent, and work back through the
>>>> 2.1/2.0 docs later.
>>>>
>>>> The upcoming re-design looks like this for the understanding doc:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-07-15-prototype-understanding.html*
>>>> <https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-supporting-documents-redesign/2020-07-15-prototype-understanding.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can add a CSS class to the objective paragraph and work out the
>>>> styling in parallel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Michael Gower
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree option 5 *seems *to scan best, but I also think there is a
>>>> missing preposition. There are 2 ideas here:
>>>> 1) we are talking about the edge *farthest from* an adjacent target
>>>> 2) we are talking about the distance* from *that edge *to* the
>>>> adjacent target (or *between *them)
>>>>
>>>> So I think we need 2 prepositions, one to describe which edge and one
>>>> to describe the distance *between* two points. i think a rejig of the
>>>> sentence still allows that to scan okay:
>>>> *The distance from each adjacent target to the farthest edge of the
>>>> current target is at least 24 CSS pixels.*
>>>>
>>>> I think we need to bear in mind that this is a design-centric
>>>> consideration. As such, it is even more important to get the
>>>> language/concept simple. As such, I want to advocate for a variation I
>>>> pasted into the channel yesterday:
>>>>
>>>> *The distance from each target's mid-point to the mid-point of adjacent
>>>> targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, expect when...*
>>>>
>>>> AWK said that this wouldn't work for some edge cases, but I'd like to
>>>> see some examples to understand what gets through the net.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of wording, this is another SC where a quick blurb
>>>> summarizing the objective would help with rapid comprehension. For instance:
>>>> *Objective: Ensure separation of targets for ease of operation.*
>>>> I wrote such blurbs for all the 2.1 additions, which were supposed to
>>>> be included in the Understanding documents, but were never incorporated.
>>>>
>>>> Michael Gower
>>>> Senior Consultant in Accessibility
>>>> IBM Design
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
>>>> *gowerm@ca.ibm.com* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
>>>> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:        Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
>>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>>>> To:        "WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <
>>>> *w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
>>>> Date:        2020/11/17 04:34 PM
>>>> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Target spacing refinement
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone, After the long discussion on target spacing today,...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *This Message Is From an External Sender*
>>>> This message came from outside your organization.
>>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After the long discussion on target spacing today, I tried to collate
>>>> the options into one place and add a couple of diagrams:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q9zWT1OjdCrts2xuadVEaJ2wpyLzxnysFQCSTs72L2o/edit?usp=sharing*
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q9zWT1OjdCrts2xuadVEaJ2wpyLzxnysFQCSTs72L2o/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I’m leaning towards option 5 as the simplest which measures
>>>> the size+spacing of the target, which would be:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For each target, the distance of the target’s edge farthest from each
>>>> adjacent target is at least 24 CSS pixels, except when:
>>>>
>>>>    - [3 bullets unchanged]
>>>>    - *Nested:* The target is enclosed within another target and has a
>>>>    minimum height and width of 24 CSS pixels.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you’d like to add something (options, positives/negatives, diagrams
>>>> etc) please let me know and I’ll add you as an editor of the doc. It is
>>>> open for comments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Alastair
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @alastc / *www.nomensa.com* <http://www.nomensa.com/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Wilco Fiers*
>>>>
>>>> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Join me at *axe-con* <http://deque.com/axe-con>2021: a free digital
>>>> accessibility conference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> *Wilco Fiers*
>>>>
>>>> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Join me at *axe-con* <http://deque.com/axe-con>2021: a free digital
>>>> accessibility conference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Wilco Fiers*
>> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>>
>>
>> Join me at axe-con <http://deque.com/axe-con> 2021: a free digital
>> accessibility conference.
>>
>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>
>
> Join me at axe-con <http://deque.com/axe-con> 2021: a free digital
> accessibility conference.
>