XYplorer Beta Club

admin wrote:..., hair,...

match on my side is grey - hence asking.

More serious: It's absolutely fascinating how such a presumably simple feature request is evolving over time. Today some call it "agility", in the end it comes down passion - on both sides, the creator and the customers (*).

It's time for a reward...

admin wrote:From next beta it's like this:

The first size that completely fills the first bar is 963 bytes:
9.5 * 1024/10 = 972,8

The last size that completely fills the first bar (and nothing else) is 1023 bytes:
10 * 1024/10 - 1 = 1023

For the other bars you replace 1024 (1 KB) with 1 MB, 1 GB, 1 TB ...

I don't understand.
Firstly: 963 != 972,8
Do you mean the first size to fill is 973?

Secondly: What about the other pixels? Would you be ok with sharing the underlying algorithm? Or is it always 9.5 * binary base number/10?

Yes, 973. Typo.
9.5 is the first value that rounds to 10, and we have 10 pixels. In touch screen mode we have 20 pixels, so you would take 19.5 for the formula.
That was the linear formula.

The binary formula would be this:
2 ^ 9.5 = 724.077343935025, so you will need 725 bytes to fill the binary bar
(2^0.5) ^ 19.5 = 861.077929219805 , so you will need 862 bytes to fill the binary bar in touch screen mode.

But you don't really need to know that. The bars are just rough graphical representations of a large scale.

Indeed, brown looks good!

admin wrote:Yes, 973. Typo.
9.5 is the first value that rounds to 10, and we have 10 pixels. In touch screen mode we have 20 pixels, so you would take 19.5 for the formula.
That was the linear formula.

The binary formula would be this:
2 ^ 9.5 = 724.077343935025, so you will need 725 bytes to fill the binary bar
(2^0.5) ^ 19.5 = 861.077929219805 , so you will need 862 bytes to fill the binary bar in touch screen mode.

But you don't really need to know that. The bars are just rough graphical representations of a large scale.

Sure, but still good to know the approximate figures and underlying mechanisms, just in case.
Thx for the details, both linear and "logarithmic".

Filehero wrote:Indeed, brown looks good!

Slightly lighter than I would prefer. On the white background it is not too good to look at. But maybe it is just my eyes.

Agreed, I make it a little darker.

I've just thought about wether it would offer a benefit when all full size blocks get reduced in width?
Since it would apply to all items the overall information isn't changed, but it could save some column space.

Hmm, could destroy the whole thing.

Yes, me and DmFedorov already had that idea, but the overall picture does not look good. It saves space but adds disorder.

admin wrote:...., but the overall picture does not look good. It saves space but adds disorder.

Ok, already proven to be of no real use. Thanks

admin wrote: ↑17 Aug 2018 20:34

Filehero wrote:

Marco wrote: - circles for folders are brown, shouldn't bars be the same?)

grey would be nice as well.

Already used for "empty".

And brown is a beautiful color: earth, wood, skin, nuts, hair, whiskey...

Can I customize the blue/brown colors of the size bars/circles somewhere? The contrast looks off when using the dark theme.

Not, they are not customizable currently.

You mean not enough contrast?

I use a darkness level of 15 and 30 for text contrast, and it appears (to my eyes) the size bars are a bit dimmed and could use some more contrast to stand out in the dark theme. Looking good in the light theme.

I agree. I will strengthen them somewhat in the next beta, and also honor the contrast setting as a factor here. The last row is the current state, the other rows are the new state (all with your settings):

Throwaway account because I only have a simple question and don't want yet another account.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how these representations are supposed to work. Right now they're useless.

bars:
A 250 G folder looks identical to a 13 G one. It has 4 boxes, the 4th one might have a pixel more in the 250 G, but you need a magnifying glass to notice.

Both look nearly identical to a 1.9 G one. That one has a few less pixels, but really not much. Not even close to '250 vs 2'.

A 57 G is literally a bit perfect copy of the 250 G one. No difference at all.

And then we have a 4 M file which still has 3 boxes. Even more hilarious.

But it gets even better: A .2 M folder with 2 boxes.

I thought this was supposed to represent size ?!


circles:
All one brown soup. The only one which is a little brighter is the .2 M folder, that's it. The others are near identical in the same way I explained for the bars. You'd never notice the 250 G elephant in the room.

Color me surprised.