RE: Spacing Between Touch Targets

Hi everyone,

Just to circle back on this one, I think we got to a position where:


  *   We have an errata (on the agenda today) for the definition of “target”.
  *   We have updated wording (below).
  *   We have an additional editors note asking for feedback on pop-over content.

From the survey I think that deals with everything raised.
(David MacDonald – you had a question about testing that may not be answered?)

Would anyone object to putting this through to a pull request and then CFC?

New wording is in the doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sszSUKB8t3VuRzxHtOjLfQZjNYCw-xr_EbuMwW7WiGc/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sszSUKB8t3VuRzxHtOjLfQZjNYCw-xr_EbuMwW7WiGc/edit>

For convenience it is here:

Pointer target spacing (Level AA): For each target, there is an area with a width and height of at least 44 CSS pixels that includes it, and no other targets, except when:

  *   Enlarge: A mechanism is available to change the CSS pixel size of all targets so that the width and height are each at least 44 CSS pixels;
  *   Inline: The target is in a sentence or block of text;
  *   Essential: A particular presentation of the target is essential to the information being conveyed.

Editor’s note: This criteria has been formulated to increase the hit-area of small targets, but the group would like feedback from providers of touch-screen devices if there is another way of forming the criteria to better complement the tap-heuristics used.
Editor's note: Are there issues with internationalisation when describing inline links?
Editor's note: Are there issues with pop-over content overlapping targets triggering failures?

-Alastair