Align Target Size (min) with Target Size (enh)

[WilcoFiers]

The first sentence of the proposed SC 2.5.8 is:

Targets have an area of at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, except where:

Whereas the first sentence of SC 2.5.5 is:

The size of the target for pointer inputs is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels except when:

Since these are essentially the same thing (except the number), I think it would be better to use the existing text of 2.5.5. I also think it is a little better, since targets don't have an area, targets are defined as an area of the screen.

[alastc]

Post CFC we can probably make this change anyway, I'll ping the list to check for objections, but it seems editorial to me.

NB: In general English I think "Targets have an area" is fine, but I agree that with our definition of target being an area, it is duplicative.

Given that, it could also start "Targets are at least...", but lining it up with the current one is preferable.

[jenstrickland]

Draft proposed response:

---

SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) (Level AA) is a partner to SC 2.5.5 Target Size (Level AAA).

Regarding the size of 44 x 44:

• The minimum target size to meet Level AA is 24x24 pixels and includes a target offset of at least 24 pixels, with noted exceptions. There are some interfaces where smaller sizes are appropriate and necessary, for example the toolbars at the top of certain editing interfaces. However, this SC should encourage the move towards larger target sizes and offset spacing in redesign efforts, as appropriate.

• This SC 2.5.8 includes the range of pointer possibilities, from mouse to touch, with the mobility needs as a consideration.

• The SC 2.5.5 Target Size (Level AAA) may be perceived as an enhancement increasing target size to 44x44 pixels where that is appropriate to the interface.

[patrickhlauke]

and i just noticed that my issue #1832 is basically a dupe of this (but again, as with my comment on the proposed draft response - same as this one), the issue here like mine has nothing to do with the response given. the issue that both @WilcoFiers and I have is consistency of the wording of 2.5.8 to make it match 2.5.5's wording more closely.

[alastc]

Merged #2082