-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Smaller icon size in grid layout #12752
Comments
@manfromarce thank you for your feedback, support for further customizing the icon sizes is being planned, you can follow the progress in #10492. |
If you're able to build Files, you can set a good small size as I just did: ...Files\src\Files.App\Constants.cs > public const int GridViewSizeSmall = 70; They currently have 100 set. You could go with anything in the 70-75 range. 70 is a hair smaller than File Explorer. If you can't, then its what it is. I can't do anything about it. |
Support for additional sizes is actively being worked on, you can track the latest progress in #10492. |
Yes, I know and still don't like it ;) Master branch grid slider, make smaller icons for grid can be done like this if it still never gets better: ...Files\src\Files.App\UserControls\InnerNavigationToolbar.xaml x:Name="GridViewSlider" If they change it any further, hopefully they get it right. I won't be adding anything further here. |
What feature or improvement do you think would benefit Files?
Currently small icons in Files are larger then medium icons in Windows Explorer and I would like to have icons of that size. Following the current naming, a new option "Very small icons" could be added, but it could be confusing for users.
Alternatively, since "medium" in Files is also more equivalent to Explorer's "large" and "large" to "very large", they could all be changed to match Windows Explorer size when "compact mode" is enabled.
A slider or something else that allows to set a custom size directly could also be considered.
Requirements
Files Version
2.5.10.0
Windows Version
10.0.22631.1906
Comments
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: