- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:01:14 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 29/06/2017 19:15, Repsher, Stephen J wrote: > Thanks, Josh. Yes, that’s a sufficient summary. My objection is really > to the negative margin technique for increasing target size. I think we > just need to acknowledge that it has significant issues which have not > been solved, and thus cannot be used to meet either the AA or AAA > version. For links within blocks of text, this means requiring a 44px > font size at AAA. I’d withdraw my objection if we fully withdraw such a > technique. Although I'm in favor of dropping the SC / deferring it as a usability best practice (where it would then use language like "for critical/important controls", a vague restriction of scope which doesn't seem possible in normative WCAG language), I'll still note that the technique is fine for situations where the density of links is very low. For situations where you have many, or an unknown number, of links inline, other techniques need to be used instead / together with it (increased line height, for instance, which can still use increased vertical padding and negative margin to make the actual actionable area larger without needing an excessively large font size; providing a mechanism that separately lists all actionable links/controls inside a block of text; etc). Which technique is used will depend on content and context. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 19:01:48 UTC