Re: Proposed mobile techniques for SC 3.2

If there were break points there could be different requirements for each
one... so it could be x%, y%, z% based on the break point.
I actually like better the idea of having actual size minimums based on
break points which was my second suggestions in that email.
Cheers,
David MacDonald
*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
www.Can-Adapt.com
* Adapting the web to all users*
* Including those with disabilities*
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Not sure I understand
>
> How does a requirement for a percentage ensure that people with physical
> disabilities would be able to use something.
>
> and why should someone with a 24 inch touchscreen have to create content
> with buttons that were 20% of the screen (monster buttons) when 20% of the
> width of an iPhone 4 screen would be very small buttons for someone with a
> physical disability.
>
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> *gregg*
>
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2015, at 6:32 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> It possibly could be percentages?
>
> Or
>
> we perhaps better, we could define several screen size ranges and base
> dimensions on those screen sizes.
> -If a screen is between x by y size and W by Y dimensions then buttons
> size would need to be A and B and space between links would need to be
> -If a screen is between W by X size and dimensions then buttons size
> would need to be B and C... etc.
>
> I think if we treat it like common responsive design break point ranges we
> could come up with common screen sizes (e.g. Small mobile, big mobile,
> tablet) and actually give some concrete advice for each of those sizes,
> which could be measurable and therefore a success criteria... I think if we
> are going to do something useful for authors and policy makers, we have to
> be more clear than the measurement of "adequate".
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel: 613.235.4902
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
> * Adapting the web to all users*
> * Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:
>
>> David,
>> I don’t see how they can ever be success criteria - since we would have
>> to specify physical dimensions — and we don’t know the device size. are
>> you thinking we assume this is a tablet or something and base all
>> recommendations on that? With some set resolution? Or do we assume
>> that we can rescale content to force a physical size regardless of screen
>> size and resolution?
>>
>> What are your thoughts?
>>
>> *gregg*
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2015, at 5:44 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It would be nice to choose wording that could eventually become a success
>> criteria rather than techniques. The principles of enough space to click
>> without hitting something else, and a big enough target seem foundational.
>> The word "adequate" is pretty subjective, I wonder if there is a range of
>> measurements we can provide as were discussed at the face to face.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel: 613.235.4902
>> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>> * Adapting the web to all users*
>> * Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *3.2 Touch Target Size and Spacing*
>>>
>>> - Providing adequate touch target size / Ensuring that touch targets
>>> are large enough to touch accurately without magnification
>>> - Provide adequate spacing between touch targets
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Does each technique make sense to you? (for now these are just
>>> titles, so it can be a challenge to be certain)
>>>
>>> 2) Do you agree that the referenced success criteria is applicable
>>> to each suggested technique, or that the technique is applicable to the SC)?
>>>
>>> 3) Do you think that there is another technique that this might
>>> better be an example for instead of a technique on its own?
>>>
>>> 4) Do you think that each is likely to be sufficient or advisory?
>>>
>>> 5) Are there other techniques that you can think of that address
>>> the SC in the mobile space?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>
>>> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>>>
>>> Adobe Systems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpatrick@adobe.com>
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>>
>>> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>