[learn_more]

>In total the thickness went down from 7 to 6 pixels, which is a 14% decrease, making it 14% more likely to miss it.

Pedantic, but chance of miss is actually less than 14% more likely since the user's click location is not uniformly random over the thickness area, it's biased toward the center (normally distributed).

[eviks]

Pedantic, you don't know the distribution, so the chance could be higher

[odie5533]

The reduction was specifically to the in-window side of the edge, so it's definitely greater than 14%.

[adammarples]

We can safely assume they're more likely to be close to the edge they're trying to grab than some random location on the window

[montroser]

Yeah, and not to mention the increase in likelihood click events the user intends for the application will make it through successfully, rather than being stolen by the window manager.

[patrickmay]

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

[dagi3d]

I had similar thought but didn't want to be that guy.

[andrei_says_]

My take is sometimes we get paid to be that guy and precision has its place and value.

We get lost when being right is seen as having value - instead of improving clarity and precision if needed in a specific context.