- From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:59:37 -0400
- To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDZjg1hfp6HahEr8ZKkb3oavVePH-pbps4Zix4aE5x5rTA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 I'm fine if we work the note into the SC but OK with current wording. I don't think it's a big problem that the SC has two goals. - Make sure the target not so tiny that a user with a disability cannot successfully hit it, and some users leverage then oom/reflow SCs to make it big enough *OR* - at least make it so they don't hit something else while trying to hit it, (Exception 1) This SC went through the ringer in 2.1 and it is clearly a consensus SC with the design world. Historically any SC that affects visual design has had a harder time getting through and requires more compromises than SCs requiring DOM changes that don't affect visual design, and this is no exception. - Studies have shown that many users with motor disabilities need 100px. - Google and Apple use 44 and 48px respectively for mobile, but break those guidelines frequently, and we've not been successful at identifying when a coarse pointer or a fine pointer is used. So the 24 px minimum raises awareness of the issue and creates enough space and/or size that many users can hit the target or at least not hit an adjacent target. This could allow users with more severe dexterity issues a minimum base from which to zoom in (up to 4x to get 96 px which is close to 100px). Hopefully, most companies are not going to punish all users with a 5px target. But at that point I'd say they have a lot more problems with usability than accessibility violations. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Mobile: 613.806.9005 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:11 AM Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote: > > 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 17:00:24 UTC