Restore Target Size (Enhanced) Understanding Doc content #3638
Conversation
|
To be discussed:
This technique regarding the adequate activation target for inline links has been relocated from Advisory Technique in 2.1 to Sufficient Technique in 2.2. It's noteworthy that inline links constitute an exception for the particular Success Criterion. While the other modifications were seemingly dropped inadvertently with the transition from 2.1 to 2.2, it appears that this particular change was a deliberate decision. We must now determine our intentions regarding it. |
the technique should still remain an advisory technique, as it goes beyond what 2.5.5 (and 2.5.8) demand |
|
I totally agree with you @patrickhlauke. I'm still unclear about the reasons behind this edit. |
|
See GitHack preview of page (no CSS) since the raw html is harder to read. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @giacomo-petri for writing up.
One questions I have, Example 3 Anchor Link :
The target is an in-page link and the target is less than 44 by 44 CSS pixels. Users can scroll the screen using browser functions so target size does not need to be met.
I do not agree that the ability to scroll is justification for small targets. I am open to be swayed. I think hypertext typically is excepted by being part of a sentence. If the target is part of in-page menu, would it not need to meet target size?
|
Hi @bruce-usab, (Edit - Added screenshots to clarify the intent of the PR) I haven't made any edits to this section of the Understanding document. The purpose of this pull request was to bring the 2.1 Understanding document in line with the 2.2 Understanding document, as the latter was incomplete with several sections missing compared to the former. 2.1 Target Size Enhanced Understanding Doc vs 2.2 Target Size Enhanced Understanding Doc Screenshots:
The efficiency of using "scroll" as an alternative to the anchor link can be subject to debate, despite providing a means to access the content. However, as you've pointed out, this doesn't constitute an exception within the normative document, so it should be considered non-compliant. While it wasn't the intention of the pull request, I'm open to removing the mentioned example if you agree with that course of action. |
Thanks @giacomo-petri ! That is okay then, my apologies. Could you be prepared to walk the group through your changes on the call next Friday, 8 March? |
|
@johannesFischer84 thanks for flagging the discrepancy. Does this PR look good to you? |
|
@bruce-usab / @giacomo-petri |
|
Discussed on TF call 4/12 and Ready for approval. |
|
Hi @detlevhfischer, this PR aims to align the Understanding Document of WCAG 2.2, which was unintentionally cut off, with the Understanding Document of WCAG 2.1. Should we proceed with this and open a separate PR for further improvements? |
|
Sure - I don’t mind if this becomes a separate PR… |
|
Great, we can consider this as ready for approval. @detlevhfischer, would you mind to open an issue regarding the particular edits you suggested? Thanks |
|
Discussed on call 4/26 and left in For discussion. It is problematic to have so much back-and-forth in a PR rather than an Issue. |
mbgower
changed the title
mbgower
changed the title
mbgower
changed the title
Matching style
mbgower
dismissed
detlevhfischer’s stale review
Given @detlev indicated he was fine with his comments being attended in a separate issue/PR, I'm dismissing
| </section> | ||
| <section id="intent"> | ||
| <h2>Intent</h2> | ||
| <p>The intent of this success criterion is to help users who may have trouble activating a small target because of hand tremors, limited dexterity or other reasons. If the target is too small, it may be difficult to aim at the target. Mice and similar pointing devices can be hard to use for these users, and a larger target will help them greatly in having positive outcomes on the web page.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Line 20: Add Oxford comma after "dexterity".
| <h2>Intent</h2> | ||
| <p>The intent of this success criterion is to help users who may have trouble activating a small target because of hand tremors, limited dexterity or other reasons. If the target is too small, it may be difficult to aim at the target. Mice and similar pointing devices can be hard to use for these users, and a larger target will help them greatly in having positive outcomes on the web page.</p> | ||
| <p>Touch is particularly problematic as it is an input mechanism with coarse precision. Users lack the same level of fine control as on inputs such as a mouse or stylus. A finger is larger than a mouse pointer, and generally obstructs the user's view of the precise location on the screen that is being touched/activated.</p> | ||
| <p>The issue can be further complicated for responsive/mobile sites which need to accommodate different types of fine and coarse inputs (e.g. a site that can be accessed both on a traditional desktop/laptop with a mouse, as well as on a tablet or mobile phone with a touch screen).</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Line 22:
- Replace the slashes with the word "or" to improve readability
- Replace "which" with "that" (since it's followed by a restrictive clause)
- Replace "e.g." with "for example" for plainer language
- Consider rewriting this as two sentences to decrease the cognitive load
As one sentence:
"The issue can be further complicated for responsive and mobile sites that need to accommodate different types of fine and coarse inputs (for example, a site that can be accessed on a traditional desktop or laptop with a mouse, as well as on a tablet or mobile phone with a touch screen)."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, @frankie-wolf.
The purpose of this PR was just to restore accidentally deleted material, not to alter that content.
There have been a number of suggestions by people of ways to improve the content, and our intention is to create a second PR which improves the information, not just restores it!
Incidentally, as a complete aside, I know Gregg is a big advocate of always swapping out "that" for "which" in restrictive clauses, but there is fairly good support for a versatile use of which with the real determinant being whether or not there are commas. For a fairly succinct history, please see https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/when-to-use-that-and-which#:~:text=However%2C%20if%20the%20source%20of,to%20introduce%20a%20nonrestrictive%20clause.
|
@detlevhfischer @frankie-wolf @bruce-usab and @giacomo-petri |
Closes: #3617 This PR restores content in the 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) understanding document that was lost during the transition from 2.1 (when it was just "Target Size") to 2.2 (after the 2.5.8 Minimum version was added, and 2.5.5 become "Enhanced"). Specifically, it adds back: - exceptions in the intent section - additional examples Some code indentations were also modified to improve code readability. These do not affect the resulting HTML document. The resulting Understanding document (without CSS styling) can be viewed [here](https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/giacomo-petri-target-size-enhanced-patch/understanding/21/target-size-enhanced.html) --------- Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Mike Gower <[email protected]>
Closes: #3617
This PR restores content in the 2.5.5 Target Size (Enhanced) understanding document that was lost during the transition from 2.1 (when it was just "Target Size") to 2.2 (after the 2.5.8 Minimum version was added, and 2.5.5 become "Enhanced").
Specifically, it adds back:
Some code indentations were also modified to improve code readability. These do not affect the resulting HTML document.
The resulting Understanding document (without CSS styling) can be viewed here