W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire WCAG2ICT-SC 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum) draft review

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 2023-05-30 to 2023-06-08.

7 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)

1. Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)

The draft proposal for the section Guidance When Applying Success Criterion 2.5.8 to Non-Web Documents and Software and indicate if you think this is a workable solution for interpretation in non-web contexts.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
The proposal is acceptable as-is.	3
The proposal needs editorial changes.	4
The proposal isn't ready yet.

Details

Responder	Review of proposal for Success Criterion 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)	Comments
Phil Day	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Chris Loiselle	The proposal is acceptable as-is.
Mike Pluke	The proposal needs editorial changes.	I understand and agree the proposal up to the end of "This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.8 and Benefits from Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.8", but do not understand what is meant by "(also provided below)". This sounds as if the Benefits, to which a link is provided, are also duplicated at some unspecified location below that text. But I assume that this is not what is meant. What I assume is meant is that the two notes and examples should also be considered. Perhaps "(also provided below)" should be removed and a new sentence started saying: "In addition, the following notes and examples should be considered:"
Mitchell Evan	The proposal needs editorial changes.	(1) We'll need word substitution for "user agent." (2) We'll need the definition of the new term "bounding box" (or "minimum bounding box"). The WCAG 2.2 definition of this term is fine as-is with no modifications for WCAG2ICT. (3) Deal with PDF somehow. Here's an idea: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1570799097
Fernanda Bonnin	The proposal needs editorial changes.	I am not clear as to why are we mentioning the benefits section of the S.C. Without providing information as to what we think the viewing distance should be for at least some common cases we could be opening the door to multiple interpretations of the S.C. and what the diameter should be.
Bruce Bailey	The proposal is acceptable as-is.	Proposal strikes the right balance of nuance needed. I do not disagree with editorial comments offered.
Mary Jo Mueller	The proposal needs editorial changes.	I have synthesized all comments and discussions thus far into a comment on the SC 2.5.8 Target Size issue: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/80#issuecomment-1582542118 A couple of additional changes were the handling of the new definitions introduced by this SC, as well as additional normative language changes from the latest CR of WCAG 2.2.