Errata for 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) to align with 2.5.8

[alastc]

There is a proposed update in #2856 for Target Size (min) to the "inline" exception:
"The target is in a sentence, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;"

I think this is a clearer and more testable version, and would like to update SC 2.5.5 in WCAG 2.1 on that basis.

[GreggVan]

Good except can we make it "line spacing" instead of "line height" to account for vertical languages? gregg

…

On Dec 19, 2022, at 9:30 AM, Alastair Campbell ***@***.***> wrote: There is a proposed update in #2856 <#2856> for Target Size (min) to the "inline" exception: "The target is in a sentence, or the size of the target is otherwise constrained by the line-height of non-target text;" I think this is a clearer and more testable version, and would like to update SC 2.5.5 in WCAG 2.1 on that basis. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2857>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXUG5YPZXUFOAF6H5A3WOCLTXANCNFSM6AAAAAATDTKX2M>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[alastc]

Hi Gregg,

In the discussion on Friday people generally found "line height" easier to understand than "inter-line spacing".

We didn't discuss line-spacing, but (putting the exact typographical definitions to one side), the size of a link in a line of text wouldn't be constrained by the spacing around the line. It would be constrained by the size of the line it is within.

In the PR (#2858) for the AA version there is a note underneath:
"For inline targets the line-height should be interpreted as perpendicular to the flow of text. For example, in a language displayed top to bottom, the line-height would be horizontal."

Does that work for you?

[GreggVan]

Yes - I see you added a note to that effect. That works for me. Thanks gregg

…

On Dec 19, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Alastair Campbell ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Gregg, In the discussion on Friday people generally found "line height" easier to understand than "inter-line spacing". We didn't discuss line-spacing, but (putting the exact typographical definitions to one side), the size of a link in a line of text wouldn't be constrained by the spacing around the line. It would be constrained by the size of the line it is within. In the PR (#2858 <#2858>) for the AA version there is a note underneath: "For inline targets the line-height should be interpreted as perpendicular to the flow of text. For example, in a language displayed top to bottom, the line-height would be horizontal." Does that work for you? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2857 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXREVALABC33LF5ALILWODCLBANCNFSM6AAAAAATDTKX2M>. You are receiving this because you commented.

[GreggVan]

Yep Works great

…

On Dec 19, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Alastair Campbell ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Gregg, In the discussion on Friday people generally found "line height" easier to understand than "inter-line spacing". We didn't discuss line-spacing, but (putting the exact typographical definitions to one side), the size of a link in a line of text wouldn't be constrained by the spacing around the line. It would be constrained by the size of the line it is within. In the PR (#2858 <#2858>) for the AA version there is a note underneath: "For inline targets the line-height should be interpreted as perpendicular to the flow of text. For example, in a language displayed top to bottom, the line-height would be horizontal." Does that work for you? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2857 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXREVALABC33LF5ALILWODCLBANCNFSM6AAAAAATDTKX2M>. You are receiving this because you commented.

[patrickhlauke]

xref #3086

[fstrr]

Is this issue still being worked on? There's a related branch from December 2022 that is up for deletion unless it's needed.