Re: CFC - Target Size (Min)

+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
>
>