– DRAFT –
MATF 4 March 2026

Software Layers

<JJ> https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVGCgwkGY=/

2.5.8 Touch Target Size (Minimum)

<JJ> w3c/matf#10

<pauljadam> Do we need to recommend or mention in a note that Apple asks for 44 and Android asks for 48 which is beyond WCAG minimums?

The scanner for Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.accessibility.auditor

<pauljadam> The testing tools Android A11y Scanner and Xcode A11y Inspector do not account for spacing so you get false positives when using those tools.

<JJ> w3c/matf#10 (comment)

<shoobe01> w3c/matf#155 (comment)

shoobe01 this is meta-research about sizes, I'm very confident about this, and trying to provide a link at the bottom (in IRC) has a summary. Our decision making should include both 2.5.8 and 2.5.5

shoobe01 "interference size" deals with how big an exclusion zone you need

What do you mean keeping 24?

and why?

shoobe01disappointed by that - it's plausable for pointer driven systems. But this shouldn't be applied for touch. Touch target size is what it is. We need to completely revamp this because of the entirely different interaction

<pauljadam> Should be called "Target Size or Spacing"

Joe_Humbert we should probably include reasons why we aren't making sweeping changes. We may need to talk to the larger working group. How many people read the preamble, because we need to ensure that people understand why.

<JJ> Poll: Do you agree to increase the minimum target size requirements from 24 to a larger number because of touch target vs pointer target differences?

<shoobe01> +1

<quintinb> +1

<Joe_Humbert> shoobe01 this is the cited research on WCAG 2.2 for 2.5.8. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1152215.1152260 I'm sure they reviewed other research, but I would have to ask

<tayef> +1

<Joe_Humbert> +1 but not sure of what number

<pauljadam> +1 we should make AAA moved to AA

<JatinV> 0

<pauljadam> the spacing part of AA is not even easily testable

<Joe_Humbert> +1 to what pauljadam said about spacing

ACTION: 5x +1 and 1x 0 for increasing 2.5.8 minimum size requirements

Agree pauljadam - how are wesupposed to test a gap if everything is in odd units like dp?

<pauljadam> dp pt px it's just 44 x 44

<pauljadam> iOS 44 android 48

(I was talking about the gaps)

<pauljadam> gap is not part of the test for the AAA 44 x 44 requirement

I know, that's why I agree with you :)

<pauljadam> lol :)

<pauljadam> sorry I thought you were asking me a question lol 😆

oh right - apologies - yeah I can see how it can read like that! It was a lament

<pauljadam> yes I've written test case steps for testing target size AA and it's weird to write because the automated tools will show false positives and you have to tell the tester to manually look for spacing

ACTION: Create draft for 2.5.8 with larger size and notes with best practices for touch target size (vs pointer)

<pauljadam> people often ask how do they measure a target size on a mobile, they'll wonder if they need to pull out a ruler :)

3.1.1 Language of Page

<JJ> github.com/w3c/matf/issues/14

<shoobe01> Yeah, I even made one I sell (cheaply!) for that because I believe in physical sizes :)

<pauljadam> iOS Display Zoom Large size might make that weird to measure on the device

Imperial or Metric units?

I'm still measuing in cubits

<pauljadam> I don't think it matters how the developer sets the language of the page like on the page itself or on the app, as long as they set it properly they meet the SC

I'm also deeply concerned that ""

Oooh sorry enter too quickly

<pauljadam> don't need an exception for a platform's lack of support, the platform will evolve and support it over time

"We're still texting whether x-platform does it" - if x-platform doesn't need to do it, no one has to do it

and that isn't what I advocate for, I'm quite the opposite

<JJ> Poll: Do we agree for language requirements in apps, we should look at the platform level (e.g. Android, iOS) and not the framework level? (e.g. Flutter, React Native, etc.)

<pauljadam> Like when Android did not support headings WCAG did not say "android has an exception" we just waited until Android really did support headings.

<quintinb> +1

<shoobe01> +1

<tayef> +1

<JatinV> +1

<pauljadam> +1 but we don't to talk about exceptions for lack of support

<Tim> +1

<Joe_Humbert> +1

ACTION: 7x +1 -> Only apply languge exception if unavailable at the platform level

I'm going to make a broswer that knows nothing about semantic tags, now I don't have to be compliant!

ACTION: Create new draft for 3.1.1 Language of Page

3.2.2 On Input

<JJ> w3c/matf#42

There is a lot of search functionality that looks like a textbox, but behaves like a button taking you to a search screen

<pauljadam> I've seen those bugs before quintinb

So you agree it's a violation?

(I think it is)

<pauljadam> yes

I really appreciate not feeling alone :cry-smile:

<pauljadam> but I think I failed it under On Focus

ah

<JJ> Poll: Is it sufficient for MATF to link to 3.2.2 On Input's Intent section for "Changing the setting"?

<pauljadam> +1

<quintinb> +1

<shoobe01> +1

<Tim> +1

<JatinV> +1

<tayef> +1

ACTION: For "changing the setting" 3.2.2 link to the Intent section the explains what it means

<JJ> Poll: For 3.2.2 On Input, do we want to add examples of common mobile user interaction patterns that will count for "user has been advised of the behavior"?

<pauljadam> that sounds like a technique

<pauljadam> 0

<Tim> +1

<JatinV> +1 OTP (one time passcode) is another example

<tayef> +1

<quintinb> +1+1

Soz

too keen

trying to vote for Joe

<shoobe01> +1

ACTION: 5x +1 and 1x 0 for adding common mobile user interaction patterns that count for user has been advised of the behavior"

👏