Re: CFC - Target Size (Min)

+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