RE: Target Size (Min)

> I figured that's why that was done, but it was done in a way that breaks the logic of the SC.

I’m struggling to understand why though. I think this is the previous version<https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/ebda32c44d51f9cb2e1d0e897ff3444789e76489/understanding/22/pointer-target-spacing.html>, which has:
“The offset between targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the offset is measured from the farthest point of one target to the nearest point of an adjacent target;”

Compared to the latest:
“The offset between adjacent targets is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the offset is measured from the farthest point of one target to the nearest point of each adjacent target including spacing;”

From that, I don’t understand how you get to “What we should definitely not do is redefine offset as a distance from one point, to any number of other points.”

It is one point for each target to each adjacent target.

Otherwise, with “an adjacent target”, you’d get a situation where testers can pick the beneficial adjacent target:
[4 boxes A to D. B is much smaller than the others. There are arrows showing the distance between edges of targets, but not an arrow that shows the small distance of the small box.]

I think the version you were just suggesting would be:
“The offset from a target, to every adjacent target is at least 24 CSS pixels, where the offset is measured from the farthest point of one target to the nearest point of an adjacent target;”

Grammatically, I think it would still need to be “each adjacent target” at the end. If so, would that overcome your objection?

Cheers,

-Alastair

PS. Tracking the history:

That aspect was changed before the meeting of the 2nd March and surveyed here:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-spacing-issues/results#xq12

Minutes: https://www.w3.org/2021/03/02-ag-minutes.html#item04


And the new version is what we all (including Wilco & JF, but not Patrick) were agreeing to on the 9th March:
https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-ag-minutes.html#item12