https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouVFq4w-i0rchNHtTAG_JoRwHfYm9mN2MkxFBct1JSI/edit
Jake: summary from Tuesday – Lots of issues
<JakeAbma> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sszSUKB8t3VuRzxHtOjLfQZjNYCw-xr_EbuMwW7WiGc/edit#
Jake: Notes at the end of the
discussion, but not complete. This is a summary. There's more
in the minutes
... the issue of making links even smaller to create the eight
pixel margin
... overlapping for different reasons – popovers, drop downs,
the index, sticky footers, headers, if overlap there's not an
eight pixel margin and way more difficult to define
... problem with if you have five but next to each other 150
wide and 30 pixel tall why would we require a pixel spacing,
because They are 150 pixel wide already
... there was no intent in the understanding document.
... also a question if we have research or guidelines from the
big IT companies – Apple, Google, Microsoft
... I think Kathy had it somewhere, just not in the
document
Kathy: it is in the document at the top it's an editor's note
Jake: okay – that's the guidance
from the platform providers, I can take this one out
... Whole discussion about zooming, that's not sufficient
solution, also pinching, not everybody can pinch. We need to
flesh it out more
... and of course the whole automated testing will be one which
is only possible if we clearly set the boundaries, so what
exactly are the concrete boundaries for testing
... so this is a Short summary of what I remembered at the end
of the comments. There might be more in the minutes
Kathy: if it meets the other guideline than it doesn't need spacing. So the question is if we have 150 x 30 doesn't need to have eight pixels horizontally. So that's just an update to the understanding document to clarify that point.
Jake: I don't think that'll be accepted as it's not in the normative text. There is a clear wish to split it up in the normative text,not talk about 44 x 44 if that's not what we wish for
Kathy: I see, so they are asking
to modify the actual SC test
... so then we have to say the touch target pointer has a
dimension of 54 x 54 pixels including the size of the target
plus the spacing around it. So we can change it in that way.
And then that would be in the normative text. Because then it
doesn't matter – the calculation is whatever the target is, if
you had 150 x 34, or whatever, then you would have to have the
spacing between it
... the only thing that that does is if we did that then were
having more than eight pixels of spacing around it were
basically saying we want to have a 54 x 54. That's goes beyond
what android. That's where that math came from.
... I wonder if we change it to if the target pointer is less
than 48 x 48 CSS, including the spacing between targets, then –
I'll write it out.
Working in the SC document
Jake: interesting gap – making the touch target smaller because It makes you pass the success criteria is also an issue
Kathy: I wonder if we simply have
something in here that says – keep in mind this is adjacent
touch targets. We are saying that that plus the spacing between
the targets is at least 48 x 48 and just forget aboutwhat the
44 x 44<
... it depends what research we want to go by. A lot of the
research out there that says if you have a touch target that's
48 x 48 pixels and it's adjacent that it is sufficient based on
people's average size of their finger and being able to hit the
touch target
... if we want to change it and go off of the other one we can
do it. If you feel like we should increase that we can do it,
we can change it to 52, that would be in line with what we had
before
Jake: it is 51 because success criteria only Kicks in when you have 43 pixels not 44, it's less than 44. So at 43 we demand the eight, which is 51. And then it doesn't matter if it's eight on top of the left one or the right one because if you have 8+ the target which is 43, that's 51.
Kathy: what I'm saying is if we
go by the research the recommended touch target is somewhere
between seven and 10 mm which is essentially 48 x 48. I can
have a very small – 30 x 30 touch target and I can pass this –
we're not saying the touch target, which is our AAA would have
to be that size
... looking at the Microsoft information because they had a lot
of research and sound backing behind what they were
Jake: then you are trying to fill in the gap of the AAA
Kathy: the AAA says the target needs to be 44 x 44. This SC says you can do that with both the touch target and the spacing between it
Jake: this is from a different
perspective, it doesn't feel okay because you can get links in
there like 26 pixels high +8 pixels on top and at the bottom
you will not even get to 48. So you will not solve it there to
get more difference between those links.
... if you have spacing of 20 pixels on each side and a target
of eight pixels you are fine. If we take a more extreme example
so you still have 8 x 8 pixel touch target and there's 20
pixels in between, would that be okay
... those were also some comments, so I'm giving some examples
– 5 x 5 target and lot of margin is that fine? If it's about
spacing between targets than making the space bigger – is that
exactly what we want while not increasing the touch target
size?
... and also the idea, the success criteria how it was was you
can make the touch target smaller and still pass the success
criteria – is that what we want?
Kathy: I think it's a matter of figuring out
Jake: the distance between them can be bigger than the eight pixels we started with, but it can fail
Kathy: I get what you're saying, I'm not sure the best way to word it
I need to think about this one. It's probably best just to revert back to what we had, because this is definitely not going to work.
Jake: I could have missed some of the details, solutions. Writing them down, listening, not thinking of summarizing them. Just thought of summarizing near the end of the discussion not when they started.
Marc: I'm thinking carpentry terms – you must have a total of 2000 pixels in your touch target. I'm not sure the exact math.
Jake: if you have a list of Very long links I'm not sure if 2000 will fix it – if there are only 26 high the problem of clicking on the top one when you mean the middle one still a problem, because they are pretty wide. And also the calculation will be even more hard I think
Marc: I have a Google link, it's 1000 pixels and total but only 22 high, so they are stacked and you can still click the wrong link. So you solve one direction but not the other one
Jake: Andrew suggested trying to take the width and height apart near the end of the conversation
Possibility from Kathy: For adjacent touch targets that are less than 44 by 44 CSS pixels then there is a minimum of 8 CSS pixels for the height or width that is less than 44 CSS pixels except when:
Another possibility from Kathy: For adjacent touch targets, if the width or height is less than 44 CSS pixels, then there is a minimum of 8 CSS pixels between targets except when:
Kathy: I'm saying if the width or height, and then minimum spacing between targets
Jake: you'll still get the feedback we have 30 and need margin okay, we'll just change it to 22
Kim: if it's less than 44, then the total needs to be 43+8
What is 14 mm in CSS pixels, because that's really what were trying to hit, the 14 mm size in general
Kathy: we're trying to hit 14 mm,
doing the calculation, we intended was 44+8, converter, 52, 53.
So I'd feel better saying 53
... Saying 52
Jake: define height or width
Kathy: If we look at 14 mm around is really 52 CSS pixels by 52 CSS pixels that you have between different targets, the space plus the target is that – if we have that you've got to right next to each other. We'd want 52 x 52 around for one of them. How we've written it now I'm not convinced that we've actually got to that.
Jennifer: Where did you get the 16 from
Kathy: if I had two targets, eight CSS pixels between the two – that is what I intended
Jennifer: can we reference other success criteria within a success criteria?
Kathy: no
Jennifer: If the success criteria
which is AAA were to change I wonder if we would have to change
that in herto – that something we don't have to worry about
right now
... bizarre edge case but that's only 30, and button on either
side. There are two buttons that are compliant and then middle
button has a spacing of 20 pixels on one side within a spacing
of zero on the other side.
Kathy: if you have 20 pixels on
one side and zero on the other side, you're fine, you still
have enough – you would still target on that item you might go
over. You still have that with and that's what we were
generally trying to get to
... so it doesn't matter if you have all of it on one side and
the other target is right next to it
... as long as it Combined is 52 CSS pixels overall
... still have to change other language
Kim: It looks like the SC works now. We still have to change the other language to match the SC. We'll pick this up in two weeks – next week is Thanksgiving.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: Jennifer, Kathy, MarcJohlic, Kim Present: Jennifer Kathy MarcJohlic Kim Jake Regrets: Detlev No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Kim Inferring Scribes: Kim Found Date: 21 Nov 2019 People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]