RE: Target size

+100000000

😊

From: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:24 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Target size

ATTENTION

This email originated outside of Navy Federal. Please exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or responding to this email.


Hey Alastair, I’m normally quiet here but I have some thoughts

As someone who uses magnification and is a keyboard-only user, finding close buttons on advertising (or cookie banners) is the bane of my existence.  Especially with cookie banners, they are frequently modals that block all other operations until the buttons are responded to.

I understand these ads frequently fail in other WCAG SC, like lack of KFI or color (dark/unethical patterns).  I honestly don’t care.  I want them to fail on minimum touch target size as well.

From the legal perspective, putting my lawyer hat on here, if a site owner chooses to voluntarily enter into an agreement and sources material that is not compliant with WCAG, that puts more pressure on not only the content creator but also the site owner to resolve the non-compliance.  At VMware, we’ve been able to improve accessibility for everyone who uses Slack, Zoom, Atlassian, etc. by throwing our weight around with our vendors.  Having this new SC will do the same, setting up an environment where site owners can tell content creators “fix this or we will take it down.”

Thanks,

Sheri

-----
Sheri Byrne-Haber (She/Her)
Senior Staff, Accessibility Architect
Mobile: 650 703 2376 (please text first if you have not called me before, otherwise it may go to VM)

Upcoming OOO: PTO December 24 through January 3, 2023
Expect a delay in my replies

Phonetic pronunciation:   shei riə bUHRn heɪ buhr
Audio:   https://vimeo.com/665808784<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1_xY1vrVRY6ADNdwa-4v9hB2-RgXNRfmFN9RYrH1P0XKEznVv0tPJ_XHvxBK92ZgIgYMA-rDTUQtVjfRDVhyp2vRqrusu5jiGefjWyWOfoo24hMiXds7QWeOtu2mA83DlTRq7ttZk3bJr1V4ZGsODNT6hvMi7CwK6qIgIH-PH47fzsGWWA9SvCP84ToLl5hbrcg9TZxx9u0ZKy5JKVRqxTr_35U6JHCzMlb5e36gXKBjG3ame4acKESN3QK1gWIv5OlMeCfKmwNziCBYxJWF_hCwQ9JBF6s0ZUp1hM75b_1mxajmsXL15BAZh5Br8EKsXE4Cpcae18TsOV_w35U-zoEzJPAR3_3V87b0oNSgpU67x-j6WZao0lX0klwktOseaOfY60PgCPfQbm6RS9SevkgG8cHkAub0oMYKQc7a-hDxPkEFt2U4dHd8qLSup5CG-LaW0me2C4wYYSXh6ECKvXg/https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F665808784>
ASL Name Sign:  https://vimeo.com/665809840<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Tgn9dBWl5DyNCuNB7F3kMtbSRDhbNmfLM9Cjd5koanewfGBbRicpM-9JmE8JbjYmNSkxtPMAT3JERylpUniuIOE67dfJeKEjUX-STgtr2WElPGoRYnfXAS9DV0zTZH6UoZO8ma8QldHABBtJpPSc800NKtnO0ZqxA_imdqJ7hz00DSUndvzSZ-4Ee7mz790QKPbb4Bzs6gWIEJHTUZSrEt9hSOxf3cKdsJ5Buwi58e_s8VyWUUtFMtyzM5PPtaAxBhIR0Oqb9bhZUwo5YiFFOm5NtKCqQYIMwWNdF56gU08FPu-YwlcFqRCOHv8W18c-_tDxWG21GN8HVqbBr683zg6Wezr9xY3Skh091l0Oulj8hWGTl7HK-lZUXVtVBX_2_dzoXkz3s4H4VM6EcRBxHyrh52UwX8fIk_gQStDO8S9e7FaIkJDWue3570hSrfPxQB51BhBfulGiDmgNtM9EPQ/https%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F665809840>

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 2:49 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Target size

!! External Email
Hi folks,

I may be having a moment of (self) doubt on target size, trying to work through the various issues and possibilities on the spacing and inline exceptions.

As mentioned in the survey, some people in the group (including people from the mobile TF) are concerned about the effectiveness of the SC. I want to check if the effort to resolve the remaining issues is worthwhile, or I’m falling into the sunk-cost fallacy<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Ymp-VEfJZKBRMS6JdCF2gTBsw_aGlHEs33qH3WfYb9GIuwS853IantdOSWDZ9mnJv_ryIc7t_Nt33B_KaW_qhjTej_eiwRDjxcNJrCE88LbhpkUKgTIZwHOGD2YRm3jIkP2cU-IcttB4U3mPKmUXA-rOSOw1mVo9swjIwk4y1dvTcjKrLFFgVCWKbXNFz8dmdIXR56JOTmsrL1H9S6QklF5uYcDhCs6z87a3632ol6zvrwLj8DoMs-n_WCEFjDscst66X7HyxckYBLxCANryCqMJbw9uhdnehRIKV2YGYjsVgKYIeBJ2BmdUU4ARzz0UB58utJww6ypw27tuFtj58-rByOsZxy7XWOr3oKo-tBb3CvQzaTwGQv18oRJ5PkBAX7C0hVA0FWoUAsrUJlmvn2CXY__9EhYYLK4mrj_RPNlx4TLy2WKbP7CN0Fxdx9Z08WqwcN89JTk_swB5KDpjWA/https%3A%2F%2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.behavioraleconomics.com%252Fresources%252Fmini-encyclopedia-of-be%252Fsunk-cost-fallacy%252F%26data%3D05%257C01%257Csbyrnehaber%2540vmware.com%257Cb6efb4dea9684ad98afb08dad840ca07%257Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%257C0%257C0%257C638060070042899206%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3D3DFrauhKUk0S%252FoeISc%252FWVfwmTno%252FVNmaS8MC167bNOQ%253D%26reserved%3D0>.

On the positive side:

  *   Everyone knows small targets are problematic, and much more so for people with mobility impairments.
  *   We have done considerable honing of the SC.

On the negative side:

  *   When you look around at most sites, particularly those which have put effort into the display on mobile devices, they tend to easily pass the SC.
  *   Most things which are under 24px seem to fall into one of the exceptions anyway, either with spacing or being in text.
  *   The most common fails I can find are on adverts (e.g. close buttons), and those ads also fail several other SCs already for other reasons. (I.e. they are unlikely to meet this SC either.)
  *   Depending on the definition of “inline” we use, it will either provide quite a sweeping exception, or a relatively narrow one and capture a lot of (arguable) ok targets. It will also have a lot of potential for arguments.
  *   Whichever definition of spacing we use will have some odd effects, either how to test it, or what passes.
  *   Other SCs like text-spacing and reflow provide methods for increasing the size of targets in some circumstances.

A lot of the problems this SC faces are inherent in the web, where the same site is provided to small touch screens and larger screens with a mouse/trackpad. Someone with low-vision and zoomed-in may not want larger targets in the toolbar for an editor. But it’s the same interface as someone with good vision and tremors.

If we could have a guideline that said “targets should be >44px unless there’s a good reason not to”, it would be fine. But in a binary pass/fail scenario that could become a legal requirement…

Am I off base? Can anyone talk me down?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lMqhz35gWNwTWa8PExRqEk2QZNqO4HDXra38tiZAGs7UW9KNkBpbV9lbUGSak0wfoo2282X8asMF4O-ZvD6SpN8XSQvWP97JFPtDNrINL9kxisEDfttygW3D8drLhc_TvSulA3MhB6eT46GNgvM_SIDXltkfTgVBZTyPSFjnqrvlPmruTX6RHcSnTqspoj4wlJq-4WNt2cG0uFkF8Y_TOofq-1h6R7JT6rvDM9WWpQ0q0nGtRjNxrwBHrvr6lwfVu1RkEYSjdsQNQ7rdjOotWTCnMEdQFd2KNTkWbvR5HWI6P9KVghkcax3rH-LN33fpcJsU5SrYLKAKnWooXtMxU5bnRYP4zH3PWzePjPKgH54VftzipAF3BAVmkIeKvrqktrrLpMDiI6YWHGypCNbY4c2nY-WupMTiDbkigCuxKlhgr188l5talSJ3lV64UqRmEHhSif8d2867VBcjVGSIQw/https%3A%2F%2Fnam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.nomensa.com%252F%26data%3D05%257C01%257Csbyrnehaber%2540vmware.com%257Cb6efb4dea9684ad98afb08dad840ca07%257Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%257C0%257C0%257C638060070043055444%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3DL7ftRZJAkfNfBuYy%252F0%252BPfgMamo6cEJY83afhDnCpaw4%253D%26reserved%3D0>



!! External Email: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.