Re: FW: Pointer target size

You're right Patrick, it shouldn't be called target size anymore. It was
carried over from when we were thinking of a minimum 24 size (which we
discarded because of how it would result in failures across the board)

Have edited the google doc to change the name and include the new wording
Jake suggested + suggestion note to explain why this logic.

On Sun, Nov 1, 2020, 1:03 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 01/11/2020 17:56, Sukriti Chadha wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So if this is absolutely purely only about spacing, with as a side
> effect a disincentive to have small targets ... why has the SC been
> renamed to "Target Size" (at least in the google doc
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_EHFVE-p4jEtKFa2jMEUruSvu6iv-Vt7UxRW9SrHTCQ/edit#heading=h.tuvbez1itgj0)
>
> ? Seems this is reverse psychology type stuff that is not made clear to
> the reader ("why is the title about size, when the normative wording
> only takes about distance/spacing?")
>
> 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
>
>