Hi all,
We need to think about shapes also.
The proposed minimum target sizes are for square shapes.
We already have rectangular targets which are smaller along one dimension.
For example, the small segment of line between two columns headers in Calc.
It is draggued in order to resize the
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mirek M. maz...@gmail.com wrote:
* At smaller sizes, the thumbnails are much harder to make out. Take a look
I don't think there's an actual need to make out things. You have
the name of the document as well, don't you? And for anything bigger
you can open a
Sorry for contradicting you, but I absolutely hate those huge
previews, these are so inefficient, wasting an insane amount of space
(I do not own a big monitor, y'know). Shouldn't these adapt to smaller
screens, and netbooks?
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: design+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Mirek M. wrote (28-12-13 00:50)
2013/12/27 Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl
Was the size in beta2 90x90 or so ?
It was a smaller than 180x180, but I don't remember the exact size.
It was 115 px hart to hart for the thumbnails.
In rc1 that is (appr) 275 px.
So appr. 180 hart to hart should be OK
