- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:35:53 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 15/10/2023 14:32, wolfgang.berndorfer@zweiterblick.at wrote: > The calculation in the example does not meet the definition of the > perimeter: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-perimeter > <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-perimeter> > > The definition says: > > „continuous line forming the boundary of a shape *not including shared > pixels*, […]” > > But the example does not subtract the shared pixels (like it did in the > draft): > > „The perimeter calculation for a 2 CSS pixel perimeter around a > rectangle is 4h+4w, where h is the height and w is the width.“ > > Is this inaccuracy an approximate value due to easier readability or do > I miss something? Not sure if this was answered or not (just came across this email in isolation while clearing things out this morning), but I believe that yes, this was handwaved here - and also gets complicated because it depends on whether this perimeter is inside or outside of the component (if inside, there's the overlap at the four corners of the rectange; if outside - like a focus outline that sits around the outside of the rectangle - then there's now *gaps* at the corners). Still, agree that this inaccuracy is confusing, and should have been called out with at least a parenthetical that explains the above in somewhat simple terms). P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 4 December 2023 08:36:10 UTC