On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:41:13AM -0800, Drew Adams wrote:

[...]
> Small, Medium, Large.
[...]
> Quick! - which is bigger, Enormous or Huge? Such names are opaque on their
> own - users will need to look up what they mean anyway.

Ot1h you're right...

> Why not just use the size as the name, without adding the vague translation?
> "256x256" is a perfectly good name, and it gives you a clear idea of the
> size.

...otoh, a layer of indirection allows adapting to different screen
resolutions and user preferences with more ease. Personally, I'd prefer
the size names, to be able to change the mapping to real sizes as a
whole.

Matter of taste, I guess...

regards
-- tomás