"Target Size Enhanced" - atomic rule #2279
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,819 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| id: gi8qkf | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For first pass of review, please focus on global structure to se whether this is a good structure for the rule. We'll discuss details of the definitions later.
Jym77
requested review from
WilcoFiers,
carlosapaduarte,
dd8,
kengdoj,
HelenBurge,
daniel-montalvo,
giacomo-petri and
dan-tripp-siteimprove
| title: Clickable area | ||
| key: clickable-area | ||
| unambiguous: true | ||
| objective: false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this definition not objective?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because I feel that "topmost event target" is not really objective.
| - the element is [rendered on a line]; or | ||
| - the element is [User Agent controlled][user agent controlled component]; or | ||
| - the element has [essential size][]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wondering if these should be in the expectation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The full point of #2214 and the CG discussion was to have them as Inapplicable 🤷
| </body> | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Inapplicable |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we have one with a clickable area that is not a semantic widget?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 Wouldn't that be bad for 1.3.1?
a <span onclick="alert('Hello')">Say hello</span> would fail 1.3.1. We can have one (with associated caveats), but I'm afraid it would cause problems for tools that do not have the same separation as ACT rules and would (rightfully) fail it.
Co-authored-by: Carlos Duarte <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Kevin White <[email protected]>
✅ Deploy Preview for act-rules ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: Observed as a pointer events target | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could the words "observed as" be cut out?
I know you added those words recently, so I assume you see considerable value in them. Still I must ask this, because when I first read those words, it made me wonder: is there another term called "pointer events target" that is different from "observed as a pointer events target"? If so, what does the venn diagram of these two sets look like? After I read the background and searched elsewhere for a minute, I arrived at the answers "no, or at least: not officially" and "n/a". If I'm the only reader that will go through that thought process: then it doesn't matter. If I'm not: then we have a cognitive load question here for future readers.
The background is essential commentary, but I'm not sure that it's essential to have it in the wording of the term itself. I figure most conversations about target size will just talk about "pointer event targets" and won't need to get into the details.
To summarize: the value of having "observed as" in the wording of the term itself is, IMO, outweighed by the cost of the added cognitive load.
| @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ | |||
| --- | |||
| title: In a Block of Text | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was going to look at the examples of this PR via the new "deploy preview" functionality, which is here. When I clicked on the "Open in a new tab" links for the examples, they didn't work, because they're pointing to w3.org rather than deploy-preview-2279--act-rules.netlify.app. Is this a known limitation? If so, can I help fix it?
New take at "Target Size" rule, as an automated rule with definitions, following CG decision.
For first pass, please focus reviews on the overall structure rather than the details of each definition 🙂
Closes issue(s):
Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review (new rule)
Pull Request Etiquette
When creating PR:
developbranch (left side).After creating PR:
Rule,DefinitionorChore.When merging a PR:
How to Review And Approve