After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 665272 - proportional sizing of window thumbnails
proportional sizing of window thumbnails
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 582650
Product: gnome-shell
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-shell-maint
gnome-shell-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-12-01 09:43 UTC by Allan Day
Modified: 2012-10-24 10:36 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Allan Day 2011-12-01 09:43:44 UTC 
We currently make window thumbnails (in the window picker) the same size. This leads to some oddities, with smaller windows appearing as big as maximised ones. Not only does this look strange, but it also hampers recognition - the relative size of windows would be a really useful visual cue.

Making the thumbnail sizing proportional would be a big improvement here.

Patryk Zawadzki has done a cool demo that illustrates the proposal:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/24178/patrys-shellexperiment/index.html
Comment 1 Milan Bouchet-Valat 2011-12-01 10:07:12 UTC 
I'm all for it, but what Apple does in Exposé in addition to proportional sizing is that the padding between thumbnails is almost zero. Shouldn't we at least reduce the padding, to avoid showing small thumbnails in an ocean of empty space?
Comment 2 Allan Day 2011-12-01 10:53:44 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> I'm all for it, but what Apple does in Exposé in addition to proportional
> sizing is that the padding between thumbnails is almost zero. Shouldn't we at
> least reduce the padding, to avoid showing small thumbnails in an ocean of
> empty space?

Less padding would certainly help. I think that's covered by bug 582650.
Comment 3 Allan Day 2012-10-24 10:36:30 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 582650 ***