Re: Target size updates

The CSS box model means that circular images intended as buttons still have
a rectangular hit region, unless it is part of an image map (or similar)
where the hit region is defined in the code. I think that is quite an
edge-case however.

JF

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022, 1:31 p.m. Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>