- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:26:24 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <6ab7fd8d-54d0-ac9e-259e-f9b510da933f@testkreis.de>
+1 (in principle) I agree with Wilco that we should still remove "including spacing" (and I believe we had determined in the WG call to do so) and revert to the simpler wording he cites, so this is a qualified +1 - not sure if such a change would need anopther CfC. I do not see the issue of confusion with the offset formulation in exception 1 that Patrick has focused on. The main SC text now clearly focuses on the target size of 24 x 24px, so that and the examples provided in understanding should leave little ambiguity. What is still missing there (I have drafted examples in http://3needs.org/en/testing/code/pointer-target.html ) is a clarification as to when targets will fall under the inline exception. But I believe that is doable. Detlev Am 17.03.2021 um 22:38 schrieb Wilco Fiers: > -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 <mailto: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> > > <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> > <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/2021/03/09-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/2021/03/02-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> > > <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://www.splintered.co.uk/> | > https://github.com/patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke> > https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ > <https://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | > https://www.deviantart.com/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. -- Detlev Fischer DIAS GmbH (Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH) Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45 http://www.dias.de Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2021 09:26:41 UTC