While the wording we came up with, and the one Jake later refined does not prescribe a minimum size, it does remove the incentive to have targets that are too small since there is a minimum distance from the next target you need to have. It is by no means ideal. It is a low bar, but a bar nonetheless that prevents the really bad cases where small targets are placed close to each other. On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 12:19 PM jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com> wrote: > Is does, clicking the wrong one > > Op zo 1 nov. 2020 18:13 schreef Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>: > >> On 01/11/2020 15:01, jake abma wrote: >> > you're so right and have been saying for a long time, mixem them and >> you >> > end up with all kind of quirks. >> > >> > But a minimum of 24 will break the internet, so if you let go and focus >> > on the 24 total, this is what we're after (the last proposed sentence >> > from me). >> > >> > We've talked on two variations for this potential SC, and the proposed >> > text Sukriti sent came out of the conversation, BUT the sentence I've >> > sent after covers exactly what we're after... >> >> But then, does it solve the original problem at all? If it doesn't (e.g. >> the two 1x1 px targets), then ... what's the point again? >> >> P >> -- >> Patrick H. Lauke >> >> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux >> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >> >
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2020 17:57:14 UTC