Re: Target size Pre-CFC

+1 to the "circles" approach.

-1 to removing lists from the Inline exception without some understanding /
clarity on its impact on various types of links-in-lists with mixes of
static text and no static text. For example this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990,
under the References, Further Reading, External links sections.

Thank you,

*Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS | *Director, Services Methodology
| 540-848-5220
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
www.deque.com



On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:33 AM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> +1 to the approach of 1) updating the text to  remove “lists” and  update
> spacing, 2) marking at risk, and 3) specifying that if we do not get
> positive response, we fallback to currently published
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 11:40 AM
> *To: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Target size Pre-CFC
>
> Hi everyone, We discussed updates to Target size today based on the
> previous survey, PR, and discussion. Those were captured in this google
> doc: https: //docs. google.
> com/document/d/1N38qrHOJSXW-OrJI7GiSjQwaYZxh5OBDJ36No7p2Ax4/edit# And
> implemented
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
>
> This message came from outside your organization.
>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> We discussed updates to Target size today based on the previous survey,
> PR, and discussion.
>
>
>
> Those were captured in this google doc:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N38qrHOJSXW-OrJI7GiSjQwaYZxh5OBDJ36No7p2Ax4/edit#
>
>
>
> And implemented in this PR:
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files#diff-a30d6476d02e45a066c55e8e174fe5381088cb0a3862e9c2e4eb3bbdf695c007
>
>
>
> Specifically:
>
>    - Remove the ‘lists’ from the inline exemption.
>    - Update the spacing exception to use the ‘circles’ method.
>
>
>
> The plan discussed in the meeting was to put this SC “at risk”, with the
> proposed text being our preference, but if problems are found with that
> during review, we fall-back to the current SC text.
>
>
>
> This email is to check for objections before we go to CFC. So, any
> objections to that approach & content?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>