Aligning target size SCs #3097
Aligning target size SCs #3097
Conversation
|
Thanks @alastc the one aspect not covered by this PR is the last point though:
So is it intentional that you may potentially not be able to be legal and follow AAA? |
|
nice catch. My recollection was that we were being explicit adding "legal" and that some felt it was redundant. But in for a penny.... Should be the same for both, I think? |
| <dt>Spacing:</dt> | ||
| <dd>The target does not overlap any other target and has a <a>target offset</a> of at least 24 CSS pixels to every adjacent target;</dd> | ||
| <dt>Equivalent:</dt> | ||
| <dd>The function can be achieved through a different control on the same page that meets this criterion.</dd> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change . at the end of this to ;
| <dt>User agent control:</dt> | ||
| <dd>The size of the target is determined by the user agent and is not modified by the author;</dd> | ||
| <dt>Essential:</dt> | ||
| <dd>A particular presentation of the target is <a>essential</a> or is legally required for the information being conveyed;</dd> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
change the ; at the end of this to .
|
need to work out relationship with #3123 |
|
+1 for aligning Target Size SCs. Exception for inline also needs updating at AAA -- for all the same reasons we worked so hard on AA inline exception. I do not think we need Spacing exception at AAA. From call today 4/11 , +1 to @WilcoFiers concern that definition of "Essential" for Target Size should not vary from essential exception used elsewhere. It should not be the case that "legal" is part of essential for this SC only. |
|
I would have actually liked this alignment of normative wording - but can't recall if we already have that again in another PR |
|
Re-opened and added to the project board as "in progress". Not sure if we have it in another PR—hopefully adding it to the board will generate a discussion around that. |
|
Looking at this again, it seems that what this was doing (roughly anyway) was covered already by #3189 which is now waiting for CfC, so in hindsight it looks like it can be closed. |
Closes #3086
Preview | Diff