RE: Target Size (Min)

Patrick wrote:
> They don't seem to have the same "bait & switch" quality that stating "we want to make sure people can confidently click/tap targets, so they need to be big enough ... oh, but actually, if they're not big, at least make sure they're spaced further apart so even though a user can't confidently click/tap it, at least they won't click/tap the wrong one".
> Wording it from the get-go to say "we want to avoid users clicking/tapping the wrong one" would be clearer on the intent/actual end effect this SC will have.

Ok, but I'll note there was plenty of support for this approach, including changing the name to match:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq15

https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-ag-minutes.html#item15


I'll be looking for other people to chip in on this (e.g. changing their mind), otherwise consensus appears to be with the current approach (on this point).

Chair hat off: 
I don't think people will read into the SC text anything about it being big enough to hit vs spaced enough not to miss. That will come from the top paragraph of the intent, which conveys that pretty well:
"The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure targets can easily be activated without accidentally activating an adjacent target. When targets are small, it is difficult for users with hand tremors and those who have difficulty with fine motor movement to activate them accurately. Providing spacing between targets will reduce the likelihood of accidentally activating the wrong control."

-Alastair

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2021 10:52:53 UTC