Re: Pre-CFC - Focus Appearance and Target Size

If we never use the term “minimum bounding box” in normative language, why not
just make the term “bounding box”? Effectively WCAG use of the term will always be about the minimum version.
If we use it with and without “minimum” in normative text, so long as both uses link to the same definition, we can treat them synonymously – always meaning the minimum.

Mike


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 6:52 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pre-CFC - Focus Appearance and Target Size
Hi everyone, This is a pre-CFC for the changes to Focus Appearance and Target Size. We reviewed these in the last meeting, the PR is: https: //github. com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files Since the meeting, changes include: Adjusting the example in the
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi everyone,

This is a pre-CFC for the changes to Focus Appearance and Target Size.

We reviewed these in the last meeting, the PR is:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files<https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files>

Since the meeting, changes include:

  *   Adjusting the example in the definition of perimeter to 2 CSS pixels. (It doesn’t affect the core meaning; it is helpful for people doing calculations for focus-appearance).
  *   Linking the target-size SC to minimum bounding box.

Reviewing it further, the definition for min-bounding box appears (to me) to work for both target-size and focus-appearance.

The second sentence about wrapping targets should not apply to target size because, by the definition of target, it is “a region” rather than multiple regions.
It should also not come up due to the inline exception.

Any concerns?

Kind regards,

-Alastair