RE: Target size proposal

Ha, this is even true for almost all of Google's showpieces like  Material Design   and Polymer  to name a few where there are more targets NOT having the desired size than the ones that do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [] 
Sent: woensdag 17 januari 2018 19:23
Subject: Re: Target size proposal

On 17/01/2018 17:48, Abma, J.D. (Jake) wrote:
> After some research it's clear that Microsoft also has 48X48 now (7/9
> mm) and the 26/34 is pretty old for MS phones/apps in from 2010...
> But they also changed a lot and so pick a number (23, 26, 34, 40, 48 
> and maybe more) and you're save... :-)
> So what research at which time by whom is the question as but for sure 
> the 26/34 is not what they use now (or maybe somewhere...)

Also worth pointing out (as already pointed out on various occasions in the past) that whether you look at Microsoft, Google, or Apple, guidance on target sizes is advisory - usually couched in terms like "in general", "should", "avoid", and so on - and that these companies themselves sometimes break their own guidance when deemed appropriate (a classic example with Apple, for instance, would be the minuscule "Back" 
control in the phone's top bar when you, say, follow a link in an email and it opens Safari). Meaning these are more subtle than hard pass/fail values set in stone, and more of good practice / UX guidance.

Patrick H. Lauke | |

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 18:35:36 UTC