You’ve already quoted the answer:
Important context explanation: there were 4 size options in version 42; there are 4 size options in 43. With the introduction of the 256px extra large size, a compromise had to be done somewhere, otherwise we would end up with 5 options.
A quick web search got me this result: compiling - How to download, modify, build and install a Debian source package? - Ask Ubuntu however I have not tested whether it works. Be aware that modifying your system packages may have unexpected consequences if you don’t know what you are doing!
Genuinely asking since I’m not familiar with the decision making process of the team:
1- Do we expect more people to benefit from the 256px option over the 64px & that’s why they were swapped? In Version 42 64px was set as the standard size in the code, Ubuntu desktop icons default to that size as well even in 43.
2- I’m also curious why 5 options are considered too many. Is there a spec sheet that dictates that there should always be 4 options? Any UX research you can point to that guided your decision? I’m asking because saying “we have 5 size options now, which a little too many” just sounds like one person’s subjective opinion is being forced on the masses. I really don’t want to believe that this is the case, but so far, we really haven’t received an answer that makes us go “you know what, that’s a fair point”.
1 Like
And that’s the point: number of files displayed versus thumbnail size (I don’t think it’s icon size).
In sum:
- Show as many files as possible.
- Recognize files by their thumbnail (e.g. images).
- Balance between the two, maybe mainly due to having different types of files in a folder.
But, as I said before, it seems difficult to find a design for this…
Thanks for asking! Both are great questions I’m happy to answer. There is a lot of history.
Background on the 256px option
For a long time, thumbnails were capped at 128px.
10 years ago, 256px size thumbnails were introduced by a GNOME 3 designer Increase the size of thumbnails to 256 (c5872652) · Commits · GNOME / GNOME Utility Library · GitLab.
5 years ago, the option to display 256px thumbnails in was introduced in nautilus as part of an experimental feature – the new grid view:(view-icon: add new zoom level (1e5eba1d) · Commits · GNOME / Files · GitLab)
That experimental grid view has served as the foundation for the new grid that has debuted in version 43 The icon view is dead, long live the icon view! – Blog about what I do
I personally figured it would be correct to follow up on the precedents and keep the 256px as a highlight feature of the new grid view.
Background on why 4 options
Going back in time again, long ago there were as many as 7 zoom levels: libnautilus-private/nautilus-icon-info.h · 3.0.0 · GNOME / Files · GitLab
Seven years ago this has been reduced to only 3: nautilus-icon-info: rework zoom levels (1968379a) · Commits · GNOME / Files · GitLab
This change was done under guidance from design recomendations:
Reduce the number of zoom levels to 3/4.
Bug 737189 – Refine list layout, reduce the number of zoom levels
Soon afterwards the 48px size has been reintroduced, going up to 4 options: general: add another zoom level (fd21c947) · Commits · GNOME / Files · GitLab
The work-in-progress designs for the future of the grid view also use only 4 different sizes.
So, we can see there has been a consistent design consensus on the number 4 in this context.
It would be ideal to have a lot of UX research for every design decision, but when such research is not available, I’d rather trust the design experts that have been working on this for quite a long time.
6 Likes
The number of options is not necessarily the issue here, the size of the options is. There is no advantage in reducing the number of options if it leaves you with unpractical sizes.
I’m happy with only 3-4 options, I only used 67% (default) and 150% (rarely and temporarily) in the past.
Having tried working with 50% and 100% for a bit now, I keep coming to the same conclusion: 50% is too small to work with, 100% is too big to be efficient to work with, requiring much more scrolling back and forth.
If it’s options you want to reduce, please offer a more sane base size, configurable if needed.
1 Like
That is a very comprehensive write-up of the whole decision-making progress 
While I don’t have any preference on the icon size, I wanted to point something out. In 1968379a Carlos wrote:
Also, following design guidelines, the new zoom levels sizes for icon
view are 64, 96, 128, with default to 96 and 16, 32, 48 for list view,
32 being the default
That sounds like designers intended 64 to be the lowest icon size before 48px was later brought back. So if a size gets axed, to me it would make sense to go back to that previous state of not having 48px. Also considering that average screen resolution has increased since 2015.
1 Like
I’d like to echo Peter & thank you for the comprehensive write up as well! It’s really impressive the amount of history there is & how difficult it is for you & the devs to find the right balance.
I personally will leave it at that & as someone who’s inconvenienced by this change (it was really the perfect config size for me & now I have to switch between 2 sizes depending on context) I understand that it’s hard to satisfy everyone, but I also hope that, given the lack of research, the feedback on this thread would serve as real world feedback from real users that you can refer to going forward. UX designers do their best as well, but without data, it’s hard for them to get it right too. I generally find comfort in how well intentioned everyone is
Our designers are real users too. And as argued above, the sample in this thread is highly biased.
But feedback here is still useful to inform the design. I’ll see what I can do.
1 Like
After Antonio’s various posts, I think his arguments are adequates. I still believe that the user should be able to choose, so for my part I have decided to give a chance to the new sizes 
1 Like
I tested on a live CD, it is possible as you say to build the source package by modifying the values. I got help from these 2 sites compiling - How to download, modify, build and install a Debian source package? - Ask Ubuntu and Nautilus-42.2 . So I was able to adjust the size of the icons as it was in Nautilus 42. But I have a question, if a nautilus update runs, for example Nautilus 43.0 to 43.1, the size of the icons will be change it back to Gnome 43 defaults?
Yes, that’s likely. It’s not convenient. But at this point I’m afraid there is no better alternative I can offer.
Furthermore, 64px has been available forever in Nautilus, whereas 48px was absent for a decade or so. It really sounds like 48px should have been chopped.
Even though it is true that the comments here are expected to be skewed, the user base might not be comparable due the availability of each zoom level over time.
Regarding the number of zoom levels. 5 is a bit higher than the expected by the designers back in the day (3/4), but it could justified as it is adding a new one (256px) for very large screens possibly. At the end of the day, those magic numbers come from perception. An Odd number allows symmetry, 2 less than default, two higher than default (a weak one, I would agree). Personally, I would prefer 3 or 5 zoom levels, not 4… because OCD
1 Like
Another voice to bring back the 67% zoom, everything looks either too big or too small now, is this even a discussion… many users have already said they prefer this option.
I’ll add my voice here to for 67
+1
what is the reason for being limited to 4?
That is not even covering half of what happened. Why bother commenting some obscure speculation if you’re not actually interested in a discussion?
Why even write “please” after shitting on the person you are asking?
However, with it, we have 5 size options now, which a little too many;