Re: Target size

Boy Alastair  — that is a good question.

As others point out - there are places where this is a real problem.    But it is not clear that we have found a solution to it - that doesnt cause other problems - or is not applicable in other situations.   So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place  (not unusual for WCAG WG). 

Sometime we have been able to negotiate this with a conditional (only applied here)  or with exceptions (doesnt apply here -only )   
Using conditionals risks missing things if it is a list — but works if it the conditions focus on the problem itself
using exceptions is dangerous because you never think of all the places this should not apply  

For this one — my mind keep reeling.   It combines important with collisions where it should not or can not be applied.    

No doubt there is a problem 
But I don’t think we have the wording yet to make a solution fly

Maybe - we find out the most egregious places and make a conditional that focuses on them?  (Though I can’t think of how to do this either)

Hmmmmm    continuing to ponder


gregg

------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Dec 7, 2022, at 2:48 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> 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://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/sunk-cost-fallacy/>.
>  
> 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 <http://www.nomensa.com/>