- From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:13:25 +0100
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHVyjGOrY=roqPD0h4Z9KRb1Lk86WqqopZ4CfzoG+td+hbY_Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Hey folks, > 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: I agree with Alastair here. The logic is that if a target is more than 24x24, you're good. And if it isn't, you have to make sure there is enough space between the target, and its neighbours. That makes way more sense to me than doing it the other way around. As for Alastair's other comment: > 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. I figured that's why that was done, but it was done in a way that breaks the logic of the SC. It seems to me the phrase "between adjacent targets" addresses this. I realise this does a lot of lifting in 3 words, so we can clarify that this means "The offset from a target, to every adjacent target". What we should definitely not do is redefine offset as a distance from one point, to any number of other points. Firstly, because that changes offset to now no longer be a single number, but a set of numbers, and secondly because what the "farthest point" is, depends on the target. On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 12:01 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > On 18/03/2021 10:52, Alastair Campbell wrote: > > > 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. [...]" > > Even that first sentence states the two things though "easily be > activated" is not necessarily the same as "without accidentally > activating adjacent targets". The SC, with the spacing exception, can > certainly aim for the latter, but the latter doesn't guarantee the former. > > 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.
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2021 11:13:55 UTC