In terms of the “medium” icon sizes, I’m not sure if I can put it into truly quantifiable terms. When I work with file windows, I usually like them to be a certain size compared with the screen ratio and size of the monitor I’m using. I typically like to have 5-6 icons in each row within that window. The next size up makes the icons feel oversized compared to the window and the graphical landmarks around them. There’s also fewer icons, therefore less information displayed at any one time. To go one size smaller, now the icons just seem to be too small compared to the window landmarks. The iconography on the Home folders also becomes harder to key off of visually. Note I’m looking at this from a Folder Icon point of view. I can easily see how image thumbnails can (and probably should) be larger for content recognition. However the folder icons are just too large or too small in Gnome 43. I’ll also admit this could be a bit of conditioning. I seem to remember the folder icons being similar to this size compared to other window landmarks for as long as I can remember, and I go a fair ways back, through Mac OS and Windows back to my Apple IIgs GS/OS days.
The main issue is the relation between the icons that are showed and the size of them.
In my case, I use 1080p screens. My laptop 1080p, 13’’ at 125% scaling. My monitor 24’’, 1080p at 100%.
In the two cases, 96px is big, and the two extra sizes are really big or enormous. Really unusable.
As I comment, there is no sense of 256px icon in a 1080p screen, around three icons will be visible in a list navigator.
I fully agree with you. I genuinly don’t see a reason for the biggest current size to exist as well.
I find the default nautilus icon size to be too big, while the smallest one just about right but stuff like labels or images can be hard to read in some cases, especially with longer filenames and every row ends up being a different height because of different length filenames which is quite annoying and makes scrolling thorough images even worse.
Also, on my 4k 27’ screen with 175% scaling the smallest size is clearly too small, while the default one remains too big,
I fail to see the relation between our issue and the mock-ups you are linking to.
It’s about thumbnail generation, label behaviour and folder content indications. Nothing about icon sizes, except the number of sizes.
In the folder preview mockup you have an example. This appears to represent the smallest icon size. You talked about their size relative to the surrounding interface. With this mockup, you also have smaller icon sizes displayed in the folder preview. You can comment if you like the icon size shown or prefer the icon size in the folder preview.
The discussion about alternative designs should better be held separate I think.
What you linked to shows a thumbnail size somewhere between current medium and large. And the embedded folder preview thumbnails are smaller than current small. This topic is about users wanting an intermediate size between small and medium. I don’t think these designs help for that.
I misunderstood some comments (about the smaller icons).
However, the problem, if I understood correctly from reading part of the comments, doesn’t just seem to have a size somewhere between small and medium. It’s about having a good presentation. The mockups I linked are not offered as a solution but as a visual aid to find out what people like about them, what part of them they perceive as part of the solution. It’s not about liking or disliking these mockups as a whole. Also, these mockups show what the future grid view (except the rich grid view) may be at the smallest icon size (the size that looks like to be presented). Discussing future design for solving issues seems better than hoping for something that might not happen in Files 43.
Now, if people really think that these mockups don’t help to move forward with the issues reported here, then let’s stop this topic here, and I’ll let them open another topic on the subject if they want to discuss their issues.
@Mikenux It’s the other way around. You are changing the subject with the mock-ups. The discussion of this topic is clear. So if you want to discuss mock-ups of an unrelated subject it would be more appropriate for you to open a new topic.
Again, you still do not want to understand because you think your interpretation of what I said is the right one despite my clarification.
“Them” is a pronoun that is referring to other people, not to me. Again, you interpreted what I wrote in your own way. Moreover, you completely dismiss what I replied by saying that my comment can be interpreted in different ways.
I didn’t create this topic which has a completely misleading title (which represents your interpretation), even though the original topic is linked and the first post talks about the correct issue (but that has nothing to do with the title).
I did not say that nor do I think that. That’s your interpretation.
Your clarification made apparent that you meant to say something else than what could be interpreted as well. I only pointed out to you that two views were possible. Either way the issue has been resolved now.