Re: Target Size (Min)

Wilco writes:

> 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.

A HUGE +1 to clear language...

> 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.

Uhm... yep.

Patrick writes:

> Yes, the text should start and explain what the overall aim is (which is
really 2), rather than start off suggesting it's about 1.


and later:

> I made a 1x1 pixel button with 23px spacing on all sides. Did I make it
so that it can 'easily be activated'? No. But at least I made it unlikely
that a user desperately trying to activate it would end up 'accidentally
activating adjacent targets'.
So to me, still, this is what the SC should be honest about. The
group's intent may well be the "easily be activated" bit. But the SC per
se immediately settles for the latter only. So it should just be
primarily about the latter.

I have to agree. I recognize we've talked this one around the
circle multiple times, but at this time I must concur with Patrick and
Wilco - this still isn't ready. I will be noting a -1 to the CfC at this
time.

JF

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:25 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 18/03/2021 11:00, Patrick H. Lauke 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.
>
> I made a 1x1 pixel button with 23px spacing on all sides. Did I make it
> so that it can 'easily be activated'? No. But at least I made it
> unlikely that a user desperately trying to activate it would end up
> 'accidentally activating adjacent targets'.
>
> So to me, still, this is what the SC should be honest about. The group's
> intent may well be the "easily be activated" bit. But the SC per se
> immediately settles for the latter only. So it should just be primarily
> about the latter.
>
> 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
>
>