>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).

▲

eviks 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pedantic, you don't know the distribution, so the chance could be higher

▲

odie5533 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The reduction was specifically to the in-window side of the edge, so it's definitely greater than 14%.

▲

Nition 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Interesting, I've always approached from the outside in.

	▲	rezonant 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I approach from whatever side the mouse happens to be on...

▲

montroser 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, 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.

▲

dagi3d 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I had similar thought but didn't want to be that guy.

	▲	andrei_says_ 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My 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.
	▲	9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]