Font size used in Understanding/How to Meet links is 7.5pt

[dd8]

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#target-size

In Chrome/Firefox the "Understanding Target Size" and "How to Meet Target Size" link font-size is x-small = 10px = 7.5pt

Irrespective of conformance this is pretty hard to click on a touch device.

As an aside, from an editorial standpoint:

• it's difficult to figure out from the WCAG 2.5.5 documents whether the "block of text" exception applies here, since there are no block of text examples (it doesn't look like the link is a full sentence, so the wording of the note in understanding doesn't seem to apply)
• it would be better if the understanding document clarified that both width and height need to be at least 44 pixels

[giacomo-petri]

The link now has a height of 15px (if on a single line) with enough padding to ensure it meets the minimum target size requirement.

If you believe the concern remains feel free to reopen.

[r12a]

Although there is more space between the links (and perhaps a little too much), the text is still very small. I would recommend increasing the font size.

I also think that slightly lightening the surrounding box line would help the links stand out better. (Rounded corners would also look nicer to me, though that's not essential. Current styling for these pages looks very basic and text-oriented.)

[patrickhlauke]

While this is of course subjective, I agree that the current style https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#target-size-minimum looks weirdly unbalanced

it uses font-size: x-small, an actual <br>, and additional flex gap: .5em;

Playing around with some possible tweaks ... removing the <br>s altogether, changing the gap: 1em, setting font-size: small, and tweaking the colour of the boxout border to #aaaaaa and giving it a subtle background colour of #ECF2F7

[patrickhlauke]

We could even throw in some additional negative margin, like margin-top: -3em, to shunt the boxout a bit further up (making it less likely that it butts up, or worse shifts, following content)

[r12a]

@patrickhlauke this looks much better, and is more readable.

[alastc]

@iadawn you might want to give this one an eyes-over. Seems like a reasonable improvement, but it's the style of the main WCAG 2.x doc.

[iadawn]

Yeah, I agree that it is an improvement. This should probably be a class 1 editorial change according to the process. I will double check with webmaster if it needs a repub of the whole doc or if we can do an update to the CSS in place.

[iadawn]

Webmaster can do this as an in place modification to guidelines.css. If someone can raise a PR with the necessary changes I can get an update sorted out.

Thanks!