Touch Target

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gl0XVAY66jpBXphUse Q

Kathy: Sukriti – can you summarize your perspective and research and we can use that as the basis of our conversation

Sukriti: two lines of thinking – avoid the worst cases, people with mobility issues
... also look at numbers. Steep drop off after 16, next is 20
... for density independent pixels – conversion that I use translate to CSS pixels. Using device agnostic pixel measurements
... 5.8 mL was the lower bound MIT research – error rate is 15%. If we are okay with that that translates to 20 pixels
... Google guidelines has 24 pixel examples all over the place. Icons were 44 this was for smaller targets
... icons are still touch targets even if it is for icons
... 24 is higher than the research but more in line with Google research

Sukriti default font size and default spacing 1.2 we come to 19. The AA requirements text spacing requires 1.5. The default line spacing in general seems to be 1.2. If we apply that to the 16 pixel that gets us to 19.2.

Detlev: if we go that low you could argue it's not necessary, but there are still times where developers choose very tiny – that would be prevented. You could argue that any kind of requirement would be better than nothing. But I do sympathize with the view that 24 is a more reasonable and usable size.

Kathy: if we say the size of the target or pointer including the space between pixel is 24 x 24 including space above and below – where does that get us.

Sukriti: but if you count above and below that would be higher than 19.2 – 22.4

Kathy: they can overlap so if you had a vertical stack list you can look at the spacing between the first and the second and then the second and the third and include that in there so that would be 22 so the default would pass

Detlev: how about stacked vertically without spacing – may be sites that use text as is

Kathy: let's look at Amazon's lists – I don't see without spacing in between

Sukriti is mostly footers. None of the good ones that aim for meeting a WCAG would do that

Detlev: just so we are clear that default size without any padding would fail – if you want to meet WCAG, either padding or larger font size if you are just doing stacked

Kathy: Microsoft is well within those limits
... site map and Microsoft at the bottom where it says contact privacy –

Sukriti: that would definitely meet the 24

Kathy: it looks like IBM would meet that too

Sukriti: I'm looking at the W3C footer – might be short

Kathy: looks like they are too close together anyway, and should consider changing
... TPAC site passes easily

Sukriti: Google footers much bigger than 24

Kathy: PayPal passes

Sukriti: PayPal footer is small but the spacing – it would pass

Detlev: CNN footer looks like it's too small

Kathy: and news sites sometimes it's small but often it's on different lines – that would be okay.
... CNN footer is okay, but at the top they have bulleted items – US version of the site – those are close
... looking at CNN bulleted items – ones that are not two lines would fail

Sukriti: they're 17.92 – no padding

Kathy: so the rest of the site passes there is one small problem, just need a little more padding in those instances
... I think this is a good example where they are meeting for almost all the areas except for that

Detlev: and we find a good formulation that makes it clear that the spacing is included in those 24

Kathy: above or below doesn't work for targets that are horizontal, so saying the space around it

<Kathy> The size of the target including the space around target is at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels except when:

Kathy: we can also explain it in the understanding dock. We can give some examples. I really like the examples from Last time with pictures

Sukriti: spacing overlap incentivizes smaller targets issue

Detlev: but spacing above and below belongs to that target and should not be shared?

Kathy: 24 x 24 square around the target so that it's easier to use your pointer to activate that control and so the fact that the space may overlap is not as much of an issue. Originally spacing in between came from trying to avoid having targets where it was hard to touch it because the size was small and the spacing wasn't there. So whole thing was around the spacing around a target to make it easier to not press the different target.

Detlev: tiny text?

Kathy: if small text size and small word still need 24 by 24.

Detlev: I see what you mean either smaller space or smaller text. So there is no longer an incentive to have tiny text because the overall measurement would not change. It's not just the measurement for the spaces in between which would encourage that, it's the measurement for both.

Sukriti: we might have to add a note in the understanding document clarifying that

Kathy: Sukriti note – do we still need to have that exemption

Sukriti: that was Patrick's comment – includes so something modified by the author is not counted toward this
... if the font size, for example has been changed or customized by the author and is no longer a default or higher we should exempt it
... material design – maybe we can exclude that one

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/text-spacing.html

Kathy: default font size plus the space above and below would be 22 point

Detlev: stacked links default is 19

Kathy: sites – Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Adobe

Detlev: eBay, CNN, big news portals that are internationally popular

Sukriti: New York Times meets it as well
... looking at popular Indian newspapers – they seem well above 24

https://www.hindustantimes.com/

Sukriti: financial times meets it as well – it's visibly bigger than most sites
... the line height is not 12 pixels, it's 1.2 of the font size

Kathy: On Financial times – bullets in drop-down menus

Sukriti: FT footers meet it. Bulleted list is 22, not 24

Kathy: W3C site fails in footer

Sukriti: graph from MIT research that shows that it drops off

Kathy: that's in your research
... I think we go for 24 – the whole point for the success criteria was to make sure we have enough space with the target and the spacing around it so we could reduce the error rate. This is going back to a hybrid of what we originally suggested and that.

Detlev: I'm happy to put on the 24

Kim: I think so too

Kathy: by email to the thread
... thanks to everyone for doing this today – and we have a good set of notes

Detlev: thanks for the research

This is scribe.perl Revision of Date 
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Kathy, Detlev, Kim_patch, Sukriti
Present: Kathy Detlev Kim_patch Sukriti
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: Kim_patch
Inferring Scribes: Kim_patch
Found Date: 01 Oct 2020
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)