[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

SIA-R111 and SIA-R113 improvements #1593

Open
4 of 7 tasks
Jym77 opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1594
Open
4 of 7 tasks

SIA-R111 and SIA-R113 improvements #1593

Jym77 opened this issue Apr 4, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1594
Assignees
@rcj-siteimprove
Labels
bug Report of unexpected or faulty behaviour in Alfa

Comments

@Jym77
Copy link
Contributor
Jym77 commented Apr 4, 2024 •
edited by rcj-siteimprove
Loading
  • Make inline targets inapplicable.
  • Make invisible targets inapplicable.
  • Make <area> elements inapplicable (due to the often weird shape).
  • Improve UA controlled exception to keep those whose size has been modified by author.
  • Consider <label> as part of the size of their labelled element; this is probably OK until rpevious point is done, since in most of the case the labellable element would be an <input> that is currently ignored. Should we merge rectangles? Probably only if they are "close enough", but how to detect that? Implicit labels should be good, for explicit ones we need to have some heuristic of "closeness".
  • Optimize collision detection
  • Factor duplicated Outcome namespaces of R111 and R113
@Jym77 Jym77 added the bug Report of unexpected or faulty behaviour in Alfa label Apr 4, 2024
@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove mentioned this issue Apr 5, 2024
Merged
@rcj-siteimprove
Copy link
Contributor

Even though inline and invisible targets should be inapplicable, they should still be regarded when calculating spacing of an applicable target. In other words an applicable target must still not be too close to e.g. a link in a text paragraph or some invisible button. Is that correctly understood @Jym77? What about the <area> elements, should they also be regarded when calculating spacing of an applicable target?

@Jym77
Copy link
Contributor Author
Jym77 commented Apr 8, 2024

Yes, all interactive content should be considered for spacing (main use case: touchscreen with low granularity where the contact point might cover more than one element).

@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove linked a pull request Apr 8, 2024 that will close this issue
SIA-R111 and SIA-R113 applicability improvements #1594
Merged
@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove mentioned this issue Apr 8, 2024
Merged
@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove mentioned this issue Apr 18, 2024
Merged
@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove mentioned this issue Apr 24, 2024
Merged
@MaksimShakavin
Copy link

Hello @rcj-siteimprove @Jym77 ,
I created a bug #1639 which is probably connected to this issue. If you think that it duplicates the topics covered in the issue of may be already fixed but not released, feel free to close it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@rcj-siteimprove rcj-siteimprove

Labels
bug Report of unexpected or faulty behaviour in Alfa
Projects
⚙️ Alfa Development
Status: 📮 Backlog
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

SIA-R111 and SIA-R113 applicability improvements Siteimprove/alfa
3 participants
@MaksimShakavin @Jym77 @rcj-siteimprove