RE: Target Size (Min)

Hi John,

We have two issues raise, one from Wilco about the scoping of the first exception. That continues separately, and may result in restarting the CFC.

The second issue from Patrick is about reverting the SC so it starts with the spacing aspect first, has the size requirement as an exception, and renames the SC back to “Target Spacing”.

I’m trying to ascertain the nature of you objection, because you +1ed the clear language point from Wilco (i.e. do not do what Patrick asked), then agreed with Patrick that it should change.

Could you clarify please?

-Alastair

PS. We did (including you and Wilco) review and discuss this version last week:
https://www.w3.org/2021/03/09-ag-minutes.html#item12





From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Sent: 18 March 2021 13:08
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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