Re: Target size Pre-CFC

Thanks Mike,
I'm okay with the wording as it is if the native English speakers say this
is correct.

I agree with you that "Undersized Target Spacing: Targets less than 24 by
24 CSS pixels" reads a little better. Slight preference for that, but I can
go either way. The key for me was to put that "another target or the circle
for another undersized target" part in, and to give an indication of what
an undersized target actually is.



On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:36 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> I would like to emphasize that we seem to have alignment on using the
> circle concept for spacing, so at this point we are merely wordsmithing,
> not proposing differences to the requirement. As such, we can always make
> editorial tweaks to the wording without affecting the CR process (so long
> as they do not alter the requirement/exception), correct?
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> I can abide by the proposed wording, although my preference would
> definitely be to change the preamble to be:
> Undersized target spacing: Targets that are less than 24 by 24 CSS pixels
> are positioned…
>
>
>
> To me that is a whole lot more readable than using parentheses, and also
> draws a clear connection between an exception (smaller target) and a need
> (more spacing around it). I didn’t hear someone speaking strongly against
> it, and would still like to advocate for that.
>
>
>
> I still consider the final phrase “or the circle for another undersized
> target “ to be superfluous and would prefer it to just end “or circle”,
> but since some found it more clear, I’m less concerned with the additional
> length and redundancy than I am with adopting the prior suggestion.
>
>
>
> Wilco, to your points/questions:
> - you only need “nor” when it’s preceded by a “neither”. We *could*
> rephrase it that way, but it becomes more wordy without making it any
> clearer, IMO.
> - number agreement is not relevant/required in this case, and there are
> good arguments for why it should be phrased the way it is.
>
> - the comma is grammatically unnecessary (and arguably shouldn’t be there)
> but if it’s needed for readability because we’ve made the ending longer, I
> can abide by that. To me, this is another argument for truncation, as per
> my second suggestion.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 4:00 AM
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: Target size Pre-CFC
>
> Thanks Alastair, This is much better I think. I'm not an expert on this,
> but I think the grammar of the last bit is slightly off, and should
> probably be this: > intersect other targets, nor the circles of other
> undersized targets. This
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
>
> This message came from outside your organization.
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> Thanks Alastair,
>
>
>
> This is much better I think. I'm not an expert on this, but I think the
> grammar of the last bit is slightly off, and should probably be this:
>
>
>
> > intersect other targets, nor the circles of other undersized targets.
>
>
>
> This has three changes:
>
> 1. Plural instead of singular. Since you're saying "the circles do not
> intersect" I think plural for the rest of that is right?
>
> 2. "nor" instead of "or", I don't think those circles can intersect with
> small targets, even if their circle isn't intersecting
>
> 3. added a comma
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 11:53 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We had some discussion about this today, including some after meeting
> ideas thrown in:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N38qrHOJSXW-OrJI7GiSjQwaYZxh5OBDJ36No7p2Ax4/edit#heading=h.fyovk9vwylou
>
>
>
> I think the one that would pass most people’s concerns was:
>
>
>
> *Spacing*: Undersized targets (those less than 24 by 24 CSS pixels) are
> positioned so that if a 24 CSS pixel diameter circle is centered on the
> bounding box of each, the circles do not intersect another target or the
> circle for another undersized target.
>
>
>
> Personally, I prefer the more concise version, however, I don’t think that
> will clear objections. So the question now is: Would anyone object to that?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
> ACT Task Force
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force