RE: Target Size (Min)

Wilco wrote:
> 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".
I think that was changed because:

  *   if you have multiple adjacent targets, you could pass for one and fail for another. But if you pass for one of them, that is a pass for “an adjacent target”. Going from “an” to “each” doesn’t seem to affect the distance measure? It is only multiple points if there are multiple targets.
  *   “including spacing” was added to make it clearer that it can include spacing, otherwise it is even more abstract.
Detlev – if we change the SC text we’ll need to start again, but updates to the understanding document can happen post (successful) CFC.
Patrick wrote:

> To me, this shows the weird duality of this SC again, trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, saying what the minimum target size should be, and then immediately exempting targets from that minimum size if there's sufficient clearance+some smaller than minimum target size.
Well, yes, it’s saying: Here is a minimum size. But, if you really must, you can go smaller if there is also spacing.
We’ve tried both ways around, and this seems clearer.

In terms of the aim, we do have multiple aims, in order of preference:

  1.  Large target sizes so they are easy to hit;
  2.  Target size + spacing to reduce the chance of making an error;
  3.  Prevent very small targets.
Given that we have the AAA version for the first, we’re sort of between the second and third, given the reduction of size from 44 to 24px.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>