Menu With Icons: What value do you like the most?

[wanderer]

Perhaps the most favorite value could be set as a default (if Christian decides to turn it on by default).

[Sosna]

2wanderer
what does VALUE mean, icon size or what?

[wanderer]

2 Sosna: Take a look at http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=12358&start=120, page 8. As you will see, it's the value of the INI parameter IconsInMenus, which defines the way icons will appear in TC menus (TC v7.0 Beta 2). Try out the values described in the poll to see the difference.

[Flint]

what does VALUE mean, icon size or what?

It means the value of the IconsInMenus wincmd.ini key.

[fenix_productions]

What "16" should do?
In my TC instance it changes nothing (same as not having IconsInMenus line).

[wanderer]

What "16" should do?
In my TC instance it changes nothing (same as not having IconsInMenus line).

Not exactly. I'm not 100% sure what it does but if you notice, when you have 16 it does not show the checkmarks/bullets of the selected items in the Show menu. If anyone knows exactly what this value does, please post it here.

[Lefteous]

2wanderer
All IconsInMenu values containing 16 but not 1 just remove the checkmark. I guess this is not intended.
I have reported the bug here: http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=105640#105640

[wanderer]

I guess this is not intended.

Hmmm. It seems someone likes it that way though! It's got a vote in the poll...

[Lefteous]

2wanderer

It seems someone likes it that way though! It's got a vote in the poll...

... and what about the other nonsense values
18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30?

Seriously I guess it's better to remove the nonsense values and restart the poll. The poll could be very helpful in finding a good default value.

Here is a list of meaningful values:

• 1 (16², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 3 (16², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 5 (24², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 7 (24², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 9 (32², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 11 (32², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 13 (48², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 15 (48², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 17 (16², no frame, toolbar button style checkmakrs)
• 19 (16², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 21 (24², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 23 (24², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 25 (32², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 27 (32², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 29 (48², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 31 (48², frame, plain button style checkmarks)

[wanderer]

Here is a list of meaningful values:

Wow! I hadn't realize all that values existed.

Seriously I guess it's better to remove the nonsense values and restart the poll. The poll could be very helpful in finding a good default value.

I assume that most of the users would use the 16² icons but if you feel anyone might have a different opinion, please feel free to handle this poll however you want.

[Lefteous]

2wanderer

I assume that most of the users would use the 16² icons but if you feel anyone might have a different opinion, please feel free to handle this poll however you want.

Well ok in this case your poll is just about the style but not about the size. I agree that 16² will be used by the most users but there are also users which use high res displays and require larger icons or users who use a television which is placed a few meters away from the couch. That also means large font and large fonts must be used.
The flexibility of the icon setting is really phenomenal although this is a quite new feature ( and 48² command icons will be released soon )

[Sosna]

well, it was my fault, I didn't noticed, that there is already beta 2, that's why nothing changed when I changed this parameter

[Flint]

... and what about the other nonsense values
18

At first I also thought so, but from the Ghisler's posts I found out that the value 2 should not be added to 1, but works by itself! So, 16+2=18 means (16², frame, standalone checkmarks), and 16+1+2-19 means nothing (though works exactly the same).

[Lefteous]

2Flint
Sorry I didn't really test this. So this is the corrected list (without redundant entries). Personally I think it would be really better to enable the whole IconsInMenus only if 1 is contained.

• 1 (16², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 2 (16², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 5 (24², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 6 (24², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 9 (32², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 10 (32², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 13 (48², no frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 14 (48², frame, standalone checkmarks)
• 17 (16², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 18 (16², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 21 (24², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 22 (24², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 25 (32², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 26 (32², frame, plain button style checkmarks)
• 29 (48², no frame, toolbar button style checkmarks)
• 30 (48², frame, plain button style checkmarks)

[petermad]

2Flint
2Lefteous
As I wrote 2 days ago http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?p=105317#105317

But Lefteous' list look nicer