# Re: Target spacing refinement

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 20:04:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHVyjGN1NNU5O12FNQ6aE-AnNPzaRZy6NP2NULRwhXuNB-41KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
```Hey folks,

The closest point of an adjacent target isn't necessarily the closest point
when measured from the farthest point of the current target. The way this
suggestion encourages someone to test it is a little more complicated than
it needs to be I think. What this tells me to do is:
2. Find the closest point (or sides) on the adjacent target
3. Find the farthest point (or sides) on the current target
4. Figure out between those points and sides what the shortest possible
distance is between them

Whereas what I think my proposal suggests is:
2. Find the farthest point one is removed from the other. In case of an
edge, pick any point on it
3. From that point, find the shortest possible distance to the target

I get the benefit of the "double-each", but when testing this you want to
start by determining the farthest point, and then determine the closest
distance to the other target. Doing it the other way around seems intuitive
to me. It seems more complicated, not less.

Just got Mike's suggestion. I'm okay with it as long as we make it explicit
that the distance needs to be 24 pixels in both directions. Otherwise E3,
E4, F3 and F4 would pass (see http://localhost:9876/test/playground.html)

Still, a preference for my proposal (with Mike's previous edits). We can
add a note or definition to explain what "all adjacent targets" really
means everything to everything else in both directions.

Wilco

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:47 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Okay, I'm going to remove both of those preambles, rename the SC, and make
> it a bit wordier. Is this easier to parse?
>
> *The distance between targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the
> distanced is measured between the farthest point of one target and the
> nearest point of an adjacent 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:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> To:        Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>, Wilco Fiers <
> wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> Cc:        Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, "WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2020/11/19 09:59 AM
> Subject:        [EXTERNAL] RE: Target spacing refinement
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> I think it helps to establish the focus at the start with “For each...
>
>
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender*
> This message came from outside your organization.
>
> I think it helps to establish the focus at the start with “For each
> target”.
>
>
>
> The problem is that we can be dealing multiple adjacent targets, so the
> “furthest point” changes depending on the adjacent targets. I.e. it will be
> a different point for each adjacent target.
>
>
>
> Starting with the “furthest point” makes it seems like there is only one.
>
>
>
> Does swapping it around help?
>
> *For each target, the distance from the closest point of each adjacent
> target to the farthest point of the current target is at least 24 CSS
> pixels, except when:*
>
>
>
> When it is that way around it implies: “…to the farthest point of the
> current target *[from the adjacent target]* is at least 24 CSS pixels”.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *Sent:* 19 November 2020 17:11
> *To:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Cc:* Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Alastair Campbell <
> acampbell@nomensa.com>; Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Target spacing refinement
>
>
>
> This might be better
>
>
>
> *For a target, the farthest point on the target is at least 24 CSS pixels
> away from any point on each of its adjacent target, except if : *
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:09 PM Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com*
> <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:*
>
>
>
> 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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:        Michael Gower/CanWest/IBM
> To:        Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com* <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
> >
> Cc:        Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>, Sarah Horton <*sarah.horton@gmail.com*
> <sarah.horton@gmail.com>>, "WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, Wilco
> Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <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* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
>
> <sukriti1408@gmail.com>>
> To:        Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com*
> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
> Cc:        Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com*
> <acampbell@nomensa.com>>, Sarah Horton <*sarah.horton@gmail.com*
> <sarah.horton@gmail.com>>, 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 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.)
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

--
*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.

```

(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2020 19:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:38 UTC