[moonmonkey]

I would like to see an option in Finder icon view to auto scale icons to fit the window.
ie. an extra setting in the finder views window



When the setting is enabled the icons scale to the maximum sensible size for all icons to be visible.

A window:




Change the window size and the icons scale with it:



If you add an item/items to the window, the icons scale and space to accommodate it (a bit like the dock), the same thing happens when you remove an item/items. the idea is that scroll bars are eliminated as much as possible.

Other things would need to be implemented first like improved icon spacing and window resizing, but I think it would be very useful and intuitive.

[Randman]

Should send your comments to Apple feedback.

[Mediaman_12]

I think that this would be cool. But I think that the 'spacial finder' fans would have a big problem with it, in the same way thay have problems with the dock. The problem is that your icons move around the windows and are not 'where you left them'. Also at what point does it decide that the window is too small to fit the icons in at a reasonable size , or if you dragged in a load of items.

[ManOfSteal]

What's the benefit for "Column" view folks?

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
What's the benefit for "Column" view folks?

Say you navigate to a folder full of images using column view, with one click you switch to icon view and see much larger thumbnails of all the images in the folder.
No scrolling needed to see the one you want, no resizing needed (unless you have hundreds of images in the folder).



(edited to add image)

[Zadian]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
I think that this would be cool. But I think that the 'spacial finder' fans would have a big problem with it, in the same way thay have problems with the dock. The problem is that your icons move around the windows and are not 'where you left them'.

I like the idea of automatic "scale to fit" icons. It's a really cool idea and I can imagine it being quite useful.
I don't see problems with the spacialness of the finder, if the icons just change their size but maintain their relative position within the finder window.
But even if the icons change their relative position within the window, where is the difference to "keep arranged by ..."?

[SMacTech]

Great idea!!! You had better free up some space on your hard drive though :-D

[cpac]

The problem with such a view option is that it doesn't account for folders with large numbers of files in them - What is the Finder to do when the user chooses this setting for a folder with 100 files in it? Make them super-tiny but visible? Set a hard limit for smallest size?

[foamy]

That's what I think. Set a limit for the smallest *and* largest sizes. I would choose 16 and 128 pixels for my limits.

I think it's a great idea and since eye candy is involved, Jobs would probably love it.

[lookmark]

Very nice idea. Sending to OS X Feedback as we speak.

[MartiNZ]

It is a very cool idea, and very OS X-ish if you ask me! In fact it could even be related to the zoom box in Finder windows somehow, maybe via option-click.

I find the Finder zoom box as is pretty much useless, especially as it always just misses the appropriate size and never zooms to fit properly where this always worked in previous Mac OSes.

There should also definitely be an option to decrease icon spacing!

[chris v]

I agree. so long as it's an option, nobody loses.

[Superchicken]

I think they should actually look at adding more iPhoto and iTunes like views to our windows, have the iPhoto slider, for sizes, show file names, and ID3 info for audio files. There's a lot that can be done with the finder. But coming from someone with a lota icons I put a lota work into, I think this idea of auto scaling is a great idea.

[cla]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I think they should actually look at adding more iPhoto and iTunes like views to our windows, have the iPhoto slider, for sizes, show file names, and ID3 info for audio files. There's a lot that can be done with the finder.

Finally! Somebody said it! THAT'S the end destination of spatialness!!
I would like to take it one step further and question the open/save dialog representation of the file system: If we open/import/place documents by dragging them from Finder TO the application - why can't we store documents by dragging them to Finder FROM the application?

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by cla:
Finally! Somebody said it! THAT'S the end destination of spatialness!!
I would like to take it one step further and question the open/save dialog representation of the file system: If we open/import/place documents by dragging them from Finder TO the application - why can't we store documents by dragging them to Finder FROM the application?

We have been, since MacOS 8.5 (proxy icons).

[sushiism]

Originally posted by cla:
Finally! Somebody said it! THAT'S the end destination of spatialness!!
I would like to take it one step further and question the open/save dialog representation of the file system: If we open/import/place documents by dragging them from Finder TO the application - why can't we store documents by dragging them to Finder FROM the application?

Like RiscOS forced you to?

[cla]

Oh yes, force without options. The minimalist's approach on operating system level - that's good ui design according to my book!
A bijective map between action and result: There should be one way, and one way only of accomplishing a basic task. (For the interface designer, it's all a matter of picking the _right_ way =] )

[moonmonkey]

Damn, it looks like the spacial finder freaks killed my thread.

[cla]

We're ALL spatial Finder freaks, we just don't know it yet! =]

Sorry moonmonkey - keep up the good work!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zadian:
I like the idea of automatic "scale to fit" icons. It's a really cool idea and I can imagine it being quite useful.
I don't see problems with the spacialness of the finder, if the icons just change their size but maintain their relative position within the finder window.

That breaks spatial orientation.

The biggest thing to keep in mind about spatial orientation is that nothing "represents" or "displays" anything: for all practical purposes, a file's icon is the file, a folder's window is the folder, and so on. Furthermore, there is a principle that files and folders (which I will collectively term things) behave like objects in real 3-D space. In particular, they exhibit identity (no more than one thing exists in one place at one time, and a thing does not exist in more than one place at one time) and inertia (they do not move of their own volition; someone must actually apply a force -that is, do something to the file- in order to get it to move). All of this has has three important consequences:

• A thing cannot be in more than one place. It must not be possible for more than one window to display the same folder. By extension, it must not be possible for more than one window to display the same files, because this would imply that the folder exists in two places.
• A thing does not move on its own. It must always appear in the same place, and only the user may alter where that place is. When folders and files are displayed, they must be in exactly the same place the user last left them, and must be exactly the same size.
• If a thing is changed by some application, the Finder must immediately update to reflect that change. There is a consequence of the icon or window being indistinguishable from the thing itself.

That's really all that spatial orientation is. It's a particular metaphor which I believe to be decent but overrated. It is not the One True Way Of Usability, though try telling that to a spatial-zealot. Other perfectly usable systems have been found, though zealots won't hear anything about that.

Now for some features of OSX which inherently break the spatial metaphor, and so according to zealots should not exist (or at least not be part of the Finder):

1) Column View (because a window and folder are not the same thing).
2) Smart Folders (because it can be used to display an icon in multiple places at once).
3) Hardlinks (because this literally puts a file in multiple locations at once).
4) Keep Arranged By... (because this allows for icons to move automatically within a folder)

Aliases stretch the metaphor significantly, but they don't actually break it, because they are technically only pointers to things rather than actually putting them into multiple places at once.

Your suggestion of auto-sizing icons also breaks the metaphor, because it allows for the state of a thing to change without

In any case, you'll notice that some of these features have been a part of the Mac for a very long time, far longer than OSX itself. Others, such as hardlinks, are necessary features of the OS itself, and removing them would impose technological limitations for the sake of user interface. Still others, such as Smart Folders, have been requested for ages even by spatial-zealots.

But that doesn't matter. To them, Tog and Siracusa are their gods.

[Zadian]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That breaks spatial orientation.

(...)
Your suggestion of auto-sizing icons also breaks the metaphor, because it allows for the state of a thing to change without

So, for a "true spatial finder" the icon size must be remain the same unless the user changes it?
But wouldn't that be the case if the icons automatically resize if the folder window is resized?
It's the user that resizes the folder window, and with that the icons. It's just faster.
Instead of changing the icon size, arrange them in order to use much less space (and to maintain the relative position) and then change the size of the finder window, the user just changes the size of the folder window.

The state of an item would change only on user interaction.
The relative position of the items in that folder wouldn't change - if all items have a space of "one icon" between each other, that space would stay the same.

Problematic would be the behaviour of the window and the icons if the user wants to add an new item to the folder.
Adding an item to the folder shouldn't result in auto resizing. Resizing of the folder window, in order to create the space were the new icon should be placed, should be possible without auto resizing the items.

Maybe there shouldn't be a checkbox for auto resizing in the window/folder settings. It would be better if the auto resizing could be accessed by pressing a modification key while resizing the folder window.