https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=168796
--- Comment #12 from Telesto <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #11) > (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #10) > > Let me rephrase. I mean, given the intended width (standard width?) and > number of items of a dialog, why is it legitimate to use icons so large that > they would exceed the width? > > Or are you saying that its the height-filling that dictates the square icon > dimensions, and we are expanding the width to adapt? > Because I'm not so sure that's a great idea. Would users really appreciate, > > say, ? a dialog with three or four huge icons that monopolize your > attention? The icon height depends on the number of tabs. Smaller icons with more than > 6 tabs. Large icons below that threshold. I personally find it incoherent & aesthetically disturbing (bug 168203) to make sense of this 'arbitrary' distinction. I don't care if the list being filled by items or more empty spacing being present. The "list box' holding the tabs could use 'fit height' property to present empty space instead of fiddling with the icon size. The tabs size width isn't (or shouldn't) be affected by icons size. The label position *is* affected by icon size > And if the icons are not > that huge - do they really not fit the widths we (or you) have set for the > tab navigation rectangle? I'm not really grasping what you mean. Might be me, though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
