- From: Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2020 15:02:09 -0500
- To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAbHSgjLzEBFOQeG6qXD1G1YwT3F9tUxtkBp2BS_eg4FV8Pdvg@mail.gmail.com>
Also indifferent between distance and displacement. That's a great catch. How about adding this to the `nested` exception : Nested or Overlapping : If a target overlaps, or is enclosed within another target, each target has an area of 24X24 CSS pixels with no other targets This is similar to the AAA version, and also the initial proposal for this SC but might work only in the case of nested or overlapping targets. On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 2:33 PM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > Hey folks, > No preference on "displacement". I was looking to implement this as an > experimental rule in axe-core when I realised this has a gap in it still. I > updated my examples: https://codepen.io/wilcofiers/pen/abZxPow > > The particular example is H4, two elements 24x24 pixels, on top of a 36x60 > element. The outer element has a distance of 30px from its farthest point > to the closet point of either element, despite the element having very > little space available. Any thoughts on how to address this? > [image: Screenshot 2020-11-22 at 20.32.11.png] > > Wilco > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 6:28 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> I'm actually quite happy with 'displacement'! I could also go with >> substituting "offset" or another 'synonym'. Does that work better for you, >> Alastair?. I'm not rejecting "distance", but I think 'displacement' does a >> better job of conveying that we are talking about how to improve >> operability, we need to assess the positioning of two objects relative to >> each other. Here it is in full, to take in how it all shakes out. I changed >> the title (again). Still not entirely satisfied with that, but the SC text >> is more important IMO. i also did minor tweaking to Nested. >> >> *Distinct Pointer Targets* >> >> *The displacement between targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the >> displacement is measured from the farthest point of one target to the >> nearest point of an adjacent target, except if:* >> >> >> - *Inline*: The target is in a sentence or block of text; >> - *User Agent Contro*l: The size or spacing of targets is determined >> by the user agent and is not modified by the author; >> - *Nested:* A smaller target is enclosed within another target and >> the smaller has a minimum height and width of 24 CSS pixels. >> - *Essential*: A particular presentation of the target is essential >> to the information being conveyed. >> >> >> I haven't included Wilco's Diameter exception, because I couldn't figure >> out what it was covering that isn't covered now. >> 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: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> >> Cc: Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>, "WCAG list ( >> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Wilco Fiers < >> wilco.fiers@deque.com> >> Date: 2020/11/20 08:46 AM >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Target spacing refinement >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Displacement doesn’t seem right, but I can’t think of a more >> appropriate... >> >> >> *This Message Is From an External Sender* >> This message came from outside your organization. >> >> Displacement doesn’t seem right, but I can’t think of a more appropriate >> term. >> >> >> >> I’m in two minds about whether it’s an improvement, I tried re-writing it >> and almost ended up back where it was: >> >> >> >> *The size and spacing of a target is at least 24 CSS pixels, measured >> from the nearest point of each adjacent target to the farthest point of the >> current target, except if:* >> >> >> >> ? >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> >> *Sent:* 20 November 2020 16:14 >> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> >> *Cc:* Sukriti Chadha <sukriti1408@gmail.com>; WCAG list ( >> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Wilco Fiers < >> wilco.fiers@deque.com> >> *Subject:* RE: Target spacing refinement >> >> >> >> I hear you, Alastair. How about we consider something like "displacement". >> >> 'The displacement between targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the >> displacement is measured between..." >> >> In regards to Wilco's 'either direction' I think that is very simply >> clarified in the Understanding doc. >> >> 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: Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>>, >> Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> >> Cc: Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com* >> <sukriti1408@gmail.com>>, "WCAG list (*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* >> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> >> Date: 2020/11/20 02:43 AM >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Target spacing refinement >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> Hi everyone, I find the concept of measuring ‘between targets’... >> >> >> >> >> *This Message Is From an External Sender* >> This message came from outside your organization. >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> I find the concept of measuring ‘between targets’ and then measuring >> *through*a target odd, but I might be in a wood-for-the-trees situation. >> If others find it at least as understandable as the other options, then it >> works for me. >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Wilco Fiers >> >> >> >> Hey folks, >> >> Rereading Mike's suggestion freshly caffeinated. I think this works. The >> "from either direction" thing I raised is probably sufficiently addressed >> just because it says "at least 24px", so if it passes measured one way, but >> not measured the other way there's nothing in the SC text that might lead >> someone to conclude that is okay. >> >> >> >> Glad to see we may have a solution! >> >> >> >> Wilco >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:47 PM Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* >> <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? >> >> *Adjacent Pointer Targets* >> *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* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com> >> cellular: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 >> >> >> >> From: Alastair Campbell <*acampbell@nomensa.com* >> <acampbell@nomensa.com>> >> To: Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com* >> <sukriti1408@gmail.com>>, Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* >> <wilco.fiers@deque.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>> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com* <sukriti1408@gmail.com>> >> *Sent:* 19 November 2020 17:11 >> *To:* Wilco Fiers <*wilco.fiers@deque.com* <wilco.fiers@deque.com>> >> *Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* >> <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; 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>> >> *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 >> >> >> >> >> From: Sukriti Chadha <*sukriti1408@gmail.com* >> <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.) >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *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. >
Attachments
- image/png attachment: Screenshot_2020-11-22_at_20.32.11.png
Received on Sunday, 22 November 2020 20:02:39 UTC