Re: Target size updates

Yep that is simpler and the same — but it points out a flaw in both. 

Imagine a circle button next to a rectangular button.       The two overlap by one pixel  you need to use a horizontal line — and that would be from the tip of the circle to the bottom corner of the square button — which is way too strict.   The buttons almost completely miss each other and should be treated with diagonal. 


How go fix.  Hmmmmmmm

I think (maybe) you can treat them all as diagonals  

Try this out.


“Target offset: length of the longest possible line (at any angle) that starts at an edge of a target (A), intersects a second edge of A, and ends at the closest edge of a second target (B).  The offset includes the target and spacing around the target.” 


Which case does this not work for?      
(I’m sure I’m missing something - but I can’t find it) 


I also think it is more accurate to retitle this  "Target with offset"     OR    "Target plus offset"    OR     Target+Offset  
This is what we are ACTUALLY measuring — and it eliminates the second sentence which is correct but doesnt make sense at the same time

“Target plus offset: length of the longest possible line (at any angle) that starts at an edge of a target (A), intersects a second edge of A, and ends at the closest edge of a second target (B).” 


The the SC also makes more sense      "the Target plus offset   (must be at least 24 px) 

gregg

------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Dec 20, 2022, at 7:50 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
>  
> Specifically on the Target offset exception, Michael Gower suggested an update.
>  
> “Target offset: length of the longest possible line that starts at an edge of a target (A), intersects a second edge of A, and ends at the closest edge of a second target (B). 
> Where a point in each target occupies the same horizontal or vertical plane the distance is measured on that axis. Where targets do not share any points in either plane, the distance is measured diagonally. The offset includes the target and spacing around the target.” 
>  
> The first line is the same, the remaining updates break down like this:
>  
> Option 7 (currently in the PR)
> Option 10 (new)
> For horizontally aligned targets, target offset is measured with a horizontal line. For vertically aligned targets, target offset is measured with a vertical line. 
>  
>  
> Where a point in each target occupies the same horizontal or vertical plane the distance is measured on that axis.
>  
>  
> For targets that are neither, target offset is measured diagonally
>  
>  
> Where targets do not share points in either plane, the distance is measured diagonally. 
> Two targets are horizontally aligned if a horizontal line can be drawn that goes through both targets, but no vertical line can be drawn that goes through both targets. Two targets are vertically aligned if a vertical line can be drawn that goes through both targets, but no horizontal line can be drawn that goes through both targets.
> The offset includes the target and spacing around the target. 
>  
> It uses the concepts of “axis” and “plane” to shorten the text. The last part of option 7 seems redundant now with the updated SC text and first part of the definition.
>  
> This seems as simple and shorter to me, can anyone see a downside to that update.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> -- 
>  
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/>