-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 239
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SC 2.5.8 Pointer Target Spacing - Suggested reformulation of pointer clearance calculation #1444
Comments
Just pinging @WilcoFiers, this is an interesting alternative approach. |
Proposed Working Group response:
|
Hi @wittjeff, I think the updated criteria text makes this update redundant, do you agree? If so we can close this issue. |
@alastc I don't see how the revised language addresses the small-target-next-to-large-target scenario. I don't see a whole lot of need for minimum target sizes (well, not for noticeability anyway); the core issue seems to be one of interference by nearby active targets. With those scenarios in mind, it is intuitive to want to move toward larger touch targets, but I don't think that is the core issue. The minimal reserved area idea was a step closer but still a bit off the mark. Target Clearance Radius (AA) If we need to bump the 13px minimum radius to some other value, then lets do that based on some empirical research. |
The history is that the current Target Size SC was going to be at level AA, but there were too many issues so it was moved to AAA. The proposal for Target Spacing was trying to get around those issues, but when it comes to toolbars and navigation lists, it still introduces a massive change. So the aim in order of preference is:
None of these are to do with noticability, just about target sizing & likelihood of being able to hit the right target once you know it is there.
To check my understanding, this is essentially allowing for spacing rather than a minimum size? We've had some fairly long discussion on the spacing and/or target size aspect, and once you get down to the small sizes the issues that come up, come up for both. I.e. allowing for spacing didn't make it easier to meet. Also, with that formulation you could have 5px square targets, which seems odd. |
Hi everyone, The text of the success criterion has been significantly updated, and the group believes it resolves the issue so this issue is being closed. There will be another review opened soon. |
on behalf of edX
I am concerned about the scenario where there is a small target positioned close to a larger target, as with the profile image and associate Zoom icon button shown at https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/pointer-target-spacing. Specifically, I don't think people will generally infer that they can use whitespace outside the icon area as active touch target space, so the number of touch/click errors will remain high in these scenarios even if the criterion is satisfied as it is currently formulated. Below I offer an alternative formulation which I believe better matches the goal of the criterion as stated, without any tradeoffs.
Instead of "For each target, there is an area with a width and height of at least 44 CSS pixels that includes it, and no other targets,"
I suggest using "For each target, the horizontal or vertical distance between the center of the target and the closest edge of the nearest interactive target is at least 22 CSS pixels."
The same exceptions should apply.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: