Re: CFC - Target Size (Min)

-1

I'm not sure when this happened but somewhere recently the sentence
"farthest point of one target to the nearest point of an adjacent target"
was changed to "farthest point of one target to the nearest point of each
adjacent target including spacing".

This doesn't make sense. Distance is measured from one point to another,
not from one point to a multiple other points. Spacing has nothing to do
with this either.


@Patrick, the "exclusive area" idea doesn't work. We explored this. If you
have two 5x5 buttons sitting right up against each other, with a bunch of
space around them, they'll both pass because each can have the necessary
space on opposite sides. The trick is for small things to measure the space
between them, not the space around them. You can only do that from the
farthest point of one, to the closest point of the other.


On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:01 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules


Join me at axe-con <http://deque.com/axe-con> 2021: a free digital
accessibility conference.