W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-Review of SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) proposed updates

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: maryjom@us.ibm.com

This questionnaire was open from 2023-11-30 to 2023-12-06.

8 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review of updates to notes in main guidance for software
Proposed 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) bullet for SC problematic for Closed Functionality

1. Review of updates to notes in main guidance for software

Review the draft proposal for updating the SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) notes. The section we currently have is Applying SC 3.3.8 Accessible Authentication (Minimum) 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

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.	3
The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	2
The proposal isn't ready yet.	3

Details

Responder	Review of updates to notes in main guidance for software	Comments
Phil Day	The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Devanshu Chandra	The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark	The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	Made some slight edits to the structure of the "Examples." Removed colons and some slight edits to "Examples" sections NOTE 4: ... Examples include using pixels (px) on iOS and MacOS, density-independent pixels (DP) for Android, and device-independent pixels for Windows. NOTE 5: ... Examples include software designed for specific hardware, such as kiosks or office equipment, where the author has knowledge of the physical screen size and potentially the pixel density. NOTE 6: ... Examples include software like TV streaming apps, where the author does not know the physical screen size or viewing distance.
Sam Ogami	The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, with the following changes.	+1 to Olivia changes. Keep the examples as bullets or inline but be consistent.
Mitchell Evan	The proposal isn't ready yet.	For proposed Notes 4 and 5: Replace. The proposed Notes 4 and 5 closely resemble the definition of 'CSS pixel', but with changes. Here is our current definition of 'CSS pixel': https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/blob/main/comments-on-definitions-in-wcag-2.2-glossary-in-appendix-a.md#applying-css-pixel-to-non-web-documents-and-software Compared with the existing 'CSS pixel' definition, I disagree with the proposed changes in Notes 4-5. - The proposal contains editorial changes that seem arbitrary and not necessary, e.g. changing "platform-defined density-independent pixel measurements" to "platform-specific, pixel density-independent measurements" - It has some substantive changes, such as changing "effective pixels (epx) for Windows" to "device-independent pixels for Windows". - If any of these changes were intentional, we should discuss them and apply them to the definition of 'CSS pixel', not say slightly different things in the two places. Instead, I propose changing the above to just one sentence: In technologies where CSS is not used, the definition of 'CSS pixel' still applies as described in [Applying “CSS pixel” to Non-Web Documents and Software]. For proposed Note 6: Rewrite or omit. The proposed Note 6 describes what to do if the 'CSS pixel' definition somehow can't be applied. However, I have not yet seen any real-world example where it cannot. The proposal gives only one example: "Software, like TV streaming apps". I disagree that smart TV applications should be excluded from SC 2.5.8. SMPTE recommends a constant viewing angle of 30-40 degrees regardless of TV screen size, so a "visual angle of about 0.0213 degrees" is easy to determine. (https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship) Some smart TV applications can be used with a pointing device, like the [LG smart TV with Magic Remote](https://www.techradar.com/news/the-best-thing-about-this-years-lg-oled-tvs-the-new-magic-remote), and it's logical to increase the target size in proportion to viewing distance beyond arm's length. That said, I agree with a note acknowledging that other standards exist or could be developed. Not because 'CSS pixel' can't be applied, but for other reasons... (1) For software designed to run on specific known hardware, a physical size standard is more straightforward to apply. (2) I believe WCAG arrived at the rather undemanding 24 by 24 minimum in part as a compromise, to make it feasible on the wide range of devices where web content can appear. If a different standard were targeted to a particular technology, it could be made more demanding and thus yield better experiences for end users. If we do include something like Note 6, it should not be only about fingertip size, but should address a wide range of user needs.
Bruce Bailey	The proposed content is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft, as-is.
Mike Pluke	The proposal isn't ready yet.	I agree with all of Mitch's arguments.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposal isn't ready yet.	I have to admit, I'm a little confused. I was looking for the original notes in the existing editor's draft only to find they didn't exist in the guidance for this SC, but are in the definition of CSS pixels. Not sure why we'd want them pulled back into this SC and propose modifications. If changes are needed, they should go into the CSS pixel definition's notes. I'm having a little trouble parsing through what changes were made and the rationale for it, so maybe an explanation is in order. Do we need these notes repeated in 2.5.8 vs. having them in the definition? Was it not clear or hard-to-find in the definition? Are there specific concerns with the existing notes we created for CSS pixels as applied for this SC that require adjustments to these notes? CSS pixel has this note: NOTE 1 Non-web software and its accompanying platform software do not use CSS pixel measurements. Therefore, use platform-defined density-independent pixel measurements which approximate the CSS reference pixel. Examples of platform-defined density-independent pixel measurements include: points (pt) for iOS and macOS, density-independent pixels (dp) for Android, and effective pixels (epx) for Windows.

2. Proposed 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) bullet for SC problematic for Closed Functionality

Review this proposal for adding a bullet for 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) to the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality Section. Indicate its readiness to include in the editor's draft.

Proposed bullet

2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) - requires use of CSS pixels. Closed functionality may not use CSS pixels. If the system supports device-independent pixels, these should be used in place of CSS pixels. Otherwise, a physical size fallback based on the research for fingertip size could be developed by a standards organization.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Incorporate the proposed bullet, as-is.	3
Incorporate the proposed bullet, with the following changes.	2
Something else.	2

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

Details

Responder	Proposed 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) bullet for SC problematic for Closed Functionality	Comments
Phil Day	Incorporate the proposed bullet, as-is.
Devanshu Chandra	Incorporate the proposed bullet, as-is.
Olivia Hogan-Stark	Incorporate the proposed bullet, with the following changes.	Some edits: 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) - Requires the use of CSS pixels, which closed functionality may not use. In instances where the system supports device-independent pixels, these should be used in place of CSS pixels. Otherwise, a recognized standards organization could establish a physical size fallback based on research for fingertip size.
Sam Ogami	Incorporate the proposed bullet, with the following changes.	+1 to Olivia changes.
Mitchell Evan	Something else.	SC 2.5.8 should apply to closed functionality the same as it does to software in general. (If there is a real-world example where it cannot apply, then I would reconsider.)
Bruce Bailey	Incorporate the proposed bullet, as-is.
Mike Pluke	Something else.	+1 to Mitch's points.
Mary Jo Mueller		Alternate edits: 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. If the system supports a density-independent pixel measurement, it should be used in place of CSS pixels. 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.