Re: Target size Pre-CFC

Hey Alastair,
TLDR: I'm uncomfortable with some of these editorial changes. They
introduce opportunities for confusion. I'm okay with this for CFC provided
we address them, and have a plan B in case we find new problems with the
centered-circle measure.

1. The user agent exception is still missing "offset". I raised this
before, and was under the impression this would get added in. I'm curious
why it wasn't. If the content author controls the space between components,
they shouldn't be exempt from following the SC. Otherwise something like
having 3 checkboxes with no space between them would pass.

2. I don't think we should use the phrase "undersized targets". It's not
necessary, and could easily be misunderstood as some new term that gives
room for interpretation, as opposed to what I think it means; Targets that
don't meet the initial 24 by 24 pixel requirement.

3. The phrase "meet another exception" seems odd. You don't "meet" an
exception, as far as I know. I think you can qualify for an exception?

4. I think the phrase "targets that do not meet another exception" is
confusing. WCAG already doesn't tell you whether these lists are
conditional (A, or B, or C) or additive (A, and B, and C). This wording
could create confusion about if these exceptions are conditional or not.
There is no logical reason to have this in a conditional. What you're
saying is: A, or B, or C (if A or B are not true).

5. I don't think we should use "centered" here. If we mean the center of
the bounding box, let's say the center of the bounding box.

6. I think it's pretty strange that we're going for a 24 by 24 square for
the main case, and a 24 diameter circle in the exception. That seems fairly
inconsistent, and looks like an artifact of our writing process. I would
feel better about this approach if we went with circles in both cases. It's
more consistent and predictable that way, and it solves questions about
rotated components.

7. Overall the "centered circle" approach feels flimsy to me. Bruce's
bullseye example shows there are clearly some edge cases it isn't handling
properly. I can live with us not handling bullseyes, and small crescent
shapes icons. I'm okay with us not having the optimal answer on those for
the sake of simplicity, but I am nervous about the things we haven't
thought of here.

Since I really don't want to see a CR 4, I think we need to play it safe.
We should put this in as "at risk" and add a note that allows us to use the
latest version that we have of the offset definition (the one with
horizontal / vertical alignment) in case we find significant problems with
the centered-circle approach.

Wilco

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 8:40 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


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