- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:01:19 +0000
- To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- CC: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <PA4PR09MB4782C376AB0EAD1FFC94FD75B9639@PA4PR09MB4782.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
On the size measure: > Fair, I realise target isn't ideal. On the other hand, then what is it? The way we’ve talked about it so far: It is the component (i.e. whatever is in the DOM / code), which generally relates to the hit area, but if that hit-area is artificially expanded then we can ignore that expansion. You rattled off a few options for what it could mean technically, but which equates most closely to what you’d see when inspecting an element in the browser-inspector? [Screenshot of some text with a highlight showing the class name and size of a link.] If there is a more correct (and understandable) term for the component’s area, great, but otherwise I think it’s best to stick to what we’ve used elsewhere. > Diameter is the distance between two opposite points on the perimeter of a shape. Huh, I see, I’d just never come across it except in the context of a circle. Is it a problem that it has to go through the centre of the object? (That’s part of the official definition.) In that context I think calling it a ‘border’ seems wrong, so that sub-bullet would be: “Minimum area: The contrasting area is at least as large as: (bullet 1), or * a 4 CSS pixels thick line along the shortest diameter of the unfocused component, and no thinner than 2 CSS pixels” The term ‘diameter’ is really throwing me, is it just me? Previously we’ve tried language “bounding rectangle”, but that caused confusion. The three options I can see at the moment are: 1. a 4 CSS pixels border along the shortest side of the unfocused component, and no thinner than 2 CSS pixels. [current] 2. a 4 CSS pixels thick line along the shortest diameter of the unfocused component, and no thinner than 2 CSS pixels 3. a 4 CSS pixels border along the shortest side of the bounding rectangle of the unfocused component, and no thinner than 2 CSS pixels. I think the first is the easiest to understand, and covers the vast majority of cases. We could even say that this option is unsuitable if you are not using a rectangle… Does anyone else have a preference (or can’t live-with) for these options? -Alastair PS. In progress updated version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KAo-6ID3NlVwdGl7uyjnlM_c28kBoizkjIdC8GXLwn4/edit#heading=h.q1znckui8nn0
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image001.png
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2021 22:02:19 UTC