Re: Target Size (Min)

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.