RE: CFC - Target Size (Min)

> Currently, the SC weakly tries to say it's about 1) (providing a large enough target), but then immediately concedes that 2) is good enough (well, it can be smaller, but just make sure you can't accidentally activate something else). This weakens the whole premise. Perhaps turning this around and making the SC primarily about 2), but then suggesting in understanding that of course the best way to achieve 2) is to just make sure your targets are bigger than this "so you don't accidentally hit something else" space and giving them an actual target size of at least 24x24?

We had it this way previously but found that for most cases it was more confusing to read through the math and having the target size first allowed people to test that first and short circuit more complicated math calculations when they were not necessary.    

Perhaps the short title should stay away from target minimum and spacing minimum and just say something like Operable Targets or Target Activation.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 6:53 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: CFC - Target Size (Min)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On 17/03/2021 21:42, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> So the center of the 24x24 exclusion zone must be within the 
> target...would it work with that extra caveat?

Mulling this over further, this would end up allowing tighter proximity than what the current idea seems to be, but if the actual concern is a user needs to be able to have an area of at least 24x24 to comfortably tap/click where they are either activating their desired target or at worst tap/click on something inert (which is a different proposition from the actual target sizing that seems to imply that we actually do want an actual active size of 24x24), then I think it would make more logical sense (particularly considering that the centre of this 24x24 area is what the user agent would, without accommodation/heuristics, count as a tap on a touchscreen.

To me, this shows the weird duality of this SC again, trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, saying what the minimum target size should be, and then immediately exempting targets from that minimum size if there's sufficient clearance+some smaller than minimum target size.
Taking clearance into consideration suggests this is concerned primarily about not activating the *wrong* control by accident (as it was too close), while the actual minimum target size seems to want a comfortable "landing area" that's big enough to comfortably press/click the target itself. I think this weird duality is, as mentioned before, what is really confusing and trying to square this circle in a single normative SC is leading to these weird geometric acrobatics.

I'd say we should pick an actual desired outcome of either:

1) user has a sufficiently large target that they can always confidently hit/activate (suggesting we always want a minimum size); or
2) each target has at least a minimum sized exclusion/exclusive area that, if the user taps anywhere within that, they may or may not manage to hit that target but at least they won't run the risk of activating some other target.

Currently, the SC weakly tries to say it's about 1) (providing a large enough target), but then immediately concedes that 2) is good enough (well, it can be smaller, but just make sure you can't accidentally activate something else). This weakens the whole premise. Perhaps turning this around and making the SC primarily about 2), but then suggesting in understanding that of course the best way to achieve 2) is to just make sure your targets are bigger than this "so you don't accidentally hit something else" space and giving them an actual target size of at least 24x24?


In short, it's a -1 from me.

The fact that the SC is indeed trying to do two slightly different things, in an awkwardly worded way, will just make it confusing. It seems to have an identity crisis of what it is trying to achieve.

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

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2021 14:11:09 UTC