>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).
Pedantic, you don't know the distribution, so the chance could be higher
The reduction was specifically to the in-window side of the edge, so it's definitely greater than 14%.
Interesting, I've always approached from the outside in.
I approach from whatever side the mouse happens to be on...
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.
I had similar thought but didn't want to be that guy.
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.