4 ms·
>In total the thickness went down from 7 to 6 pixels, which is a 14% decrease, making it 14% more likely to miss it. Pedantic, but chance of miss is actually l
by learn_more 7mo ago
>In total the thickness went down from 7 to 6 pixels, which is a 14% decrease, making it 14% more likely to miss it.
Pedantic, but chance of miss is actually less than 14% more likely since the user's click location is not uniformly random over the thickness area, it's biased toward the center (normally distributed).
- dagi3d 7mo agoI had similar thought but didn't want to be that guy.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- andrei_says_ 7mo agoMy take is sometimes we get paid to be that guy and precision has its place and value. We get lost when being right is seen as having value - instead of improving clarity and precision if needed in a specific context.
- montroser 7mo agoYeah, and not to mention the increase in likelihood click events the user intends for the application will make it through successfully, rather than being stolen by the window manager.
- eviks 7mo agoPedantic, you don't know the distribution, so the chance could be higher
- odie5533 7mo agoThe reduction was specifically to the in-window side of the edge, so it's definitely greater than 14%.
- Nition 7mo agoInteresting, I've always approached from the outside in.
- rezonant 7mo agoI approach from whatever side the mouse happens to be on...
- disconcision 7mo agonever thought about it before but after playing with it a while i notice i tend to approach from the right, which means moving out if i'm inside on the right side. i think this is because my positioning accuracy seems to be higher moving leftwards than rightwards...
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- adammarples 7mo agoWe can safely assume they're more likely to be close to the edge they're trying to grab than some random location on the window
- eviks 7mo agoAim wider: why window and not screen?
- patrickmay 7mo agoTechnically correct is the best kind of correct.