The first two questions in this survey are regarding SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)

Review the draft proposal for updating the SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) notes. You can see it in-context in the PR draft in the section Applying SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) to Non-Web Documents and Software. Note 3 is the only new content being proposed.

CAUTION: This is not opening the rest of the previously agreed upon guidance to further editing unless there is some glaring error.

Proposed new note:

Note 3: In technologies where CSS is not used, the definition of 'CSS pixel' applies as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software.

Indicate whether this proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft and note any desired changes.

Summary

Details

Review the updated proposal for adding a bullet for 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality Section below. Indicate its readiness to include in the editor's draft. If you wish to read it in the context of the section, see Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality.

Proposed content

2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)—This Success Criterion uses CSS pixels for defining the target size. Closed functionality may not use CSS pixels as a standard measurement, but the definition of 'CSS pixel' still applies as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software. If the system supports a density-independent pixel measurement, it should be used in place of CSS pixels.

NOTE 1: If the viewing distance or pixel density of the system is unknown, approximating the reference pixel as described in Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software is not possible."

NOTE 2: For software designed to run on specific known hardware, a physical size standard would be more straightforward to apply, as calculations for CSS pixels is dependent on the viewing distance and pixel density of the display."

Summary

Details

Review the updated proposal for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) and indicate the readiness to incorporate the proposal into the editor's draft. This will be split into 5 questions, all regarding this proposal.

Background on the changes in this proposal: These changes were due to survey feedback for questions 1 and 2 , and our meeting discussion of survey results on 16 November and survey results for closed functionality question on 30 November.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc for 3.3.8

For this question, indicate whether the content from the beginning of the "Applying SC 3.3.8..." up to the notes (not including them) is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft.

Summary

Details

This question is about Note 3 in the proposal for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). This did not change from the previous proposal as the group didn't come to a conclusion in the previous discussion. Indicate the readiness to incorporate Note 3 into the editor's draft.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc for 3.3.8.

Summary

Details

This question is about Note 4 in the proposal for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). This is a newly proposed note. Indicate the readiness to incorporate Note 4 into the editor's draft.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc for 3.3.8.

Summary

Details

This question is about Note 5 in the proposal for 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum). This is a newly proposed note. Indicate the readiness to incorporate Note 5 into the editor's draft.

Suggest edits or changes in the Google doc for 3.3.8.

Summary

Details

The proposal didn't specify whether a note was needed in the SC problematic for closed functionality section, but our previous survey on this SC indicated one was needed. We may be able to use content verbatim or summarized in that section. Indicate your preferred solution.

Use the Google doc for 3.3.8 to provide any proposed content for that section. There is a section title placeholder in the Google doc where you can add your suggested text.

Summary

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details