Re: CFC - Target Size (Min)

On 17/03/2021 17:09, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends 19th March at 3pm Boston time.
> 
> The Working Group has discussed the WCAG 2.2 success criteria “Target 
> Size (Minimum)”, formerly “Target spacing”, the latest version can be 
> seen here:
> 
> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#target-size-minimum 
> <https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/#target-size-minimum>
> 
> Survey of issues and responses:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results>
> 
> Previous minutes include:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-ag-minutes.html#item12 
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-ag-minutes.html#item12>
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2021/03/02-ag-minutes.html#item03 
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/03/02-ag-minutes.html#item03>
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/23-ag-minutes.html#item02 
> <https://www.w3.org/2021/02/23-ag-minutes.html#item02>
> 
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have 
> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 
> “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know 
> before the CfC deadline.

This has been discussed before, however my main concern is still with 
the "offset" language and how, in the normative wording, it's very hard 
if not impossible to understand.

"Spacing: The offset between adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, 
where the offset is measured from the farthest point of one target to 
the nearest point of each adjacent target including spacing"

Farthest point ... farthest from what? I assume it means farthest from 
the particular adjacent target that you're then measuring the distance 
from? It's not clear in isolation what "the farthest point of one 
target". If this is to be kept, maybe turning the sentence around makes 
it clearer? "...measured from each adjacent target to the farthest point 
(on the other side) of the evaluated target".

But this also doesn't really make it any clearer to a layperson.

Looking over the examples in the understanding, where all targets are 
square/rectangular, I would still say that a much simpler way of saying 
this (that still matches exactly with the pass/fail assessments of those 
examples in the understanding) is to say that each target "has an area 
of 24 x 24 pixels which includes the target, and any spacing, that does 
not contain any other adjacent target" or similar. That there's 
essentially an "area of exclusion" / "exclusive area" of 24 x 24 pixels 
that only contains that particular target. This would be much more 
straightforward to understand (and effectively, I'd hazard a guess that 
that's how auditors will test it as well ... they'll have a 24 x 24 CSS 
px overlay and they'll check if that can be placed on a target and have 
no other adjacent targets intruding in it.

I'd be in favour of getting the wording in the normative part as clear 
as possible, rather than relying on something obfuscated that then 
requires intense study of the understanding doc to ... understand. 
Otherwise, this will lead to a lot of headscratching by auditors in 
future (when it's then too late to change it).

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2021 19:00:26 UTC