From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
Cc: 51596@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#51596: image-transform-resize has inconsistent semantics wrt scaling up/down
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:52:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADwFkmkQOcpT98jUmadRhpOCgwmkae5MVP=exeBhj_MjhnurUg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fssbu7wh.fsf@gnus.org>
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:
>
>> "Fit height" and "fit width" both scales an image up or down, but "fit
>> height and width" only scales an image down. Is that intentional?
>
> Yes, I think so? The point of the latter is that too-big images are
> pretty useless -- you want to scale them down so that you can actually
> see them. But it doesn't therefore follow that you want to scale tiny
> icons up to fill the screen.
Right, and that's a valid use case of course. I still find the
interface inconsistent, as the naming scheme suggests that these three
options should behave similarly.
I made a quick review of other image viewers:
emacs gthumb geeqie eog
----- ------ ------ ---
fit height and width Automatic Zoom 1:1 Best fit
<missing> Fit to window Fit image to window <missing>
fit to width Fit to width <missing> <missing>
fit to height Fit to height <missing> <missing>
How about renaming "fit height and width" to something that suggests
that it behaves differently from "fit to width" and "fit to height", and
then adding a new option "fit to window" that scales up or down as
needed?
Perhaps we could even have a "smart" option that only scales images up
larger than some height and width, and otherwise leaves them in their
original size. That's probably the one I would like to use, now that I
think about it. (I usually prefer to scale images up, but as you point
out it's pretty useless to scale small icons to fit the window.)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-04 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-04 4:14 bug#51596: image-transform-resize has inconsistent semantics wrt scaling up/down Stefan Kangas
2021-11-04 17:50 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-11-04 18:52 ` Stefan Kangas [this message]
2021-11-04 19:16 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-04 19:41 ` Stefan Kangas
2021-11-04 19:49 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-04 20:19 ` Stefan Kangas
2021-11-04 22:52 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-11-05 4:07 ` Stefan Kangas
2021-11-05 13:22 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2021-11-06 18:49 ` Juri Linkov
2021-11-06 19:49 ` Stefan Kangas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CADwFkmkQOcpT98jUmadRhpOCgwmkae5MVP=exeBhj_MjhnurUg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=stefan@marxist.se \
--cc=51596@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=larsi@gnus.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).