At present, adding new custom binder icons just inserts them into the pre-existing list. This works pretty organically on Mac, where the list is vertical and scrollable, but in Windows it just adds column after column; I’ve found this makes it impossible to navigate after a certain point because it doesn’t let you scroll horizontally past the edge of the screen.
I’m wondering if there’s a way to add new icons within a sub-folder, like we see in the defaults for, say Way-Stations and Flags? Or possibly a way of making the list run vertically instead of horizontally as it does on Mac? Anything to make it more manageable, basically.
I second this. I’d like a way to create folders for icons, too. The default ones have folders, and it would be helpful if we could do that for ours, too.
Maybe instead of changing the built-in icon manager, there could be an option to point to folders and icons on the local hard drive?
Seconding this. I hit the limits of my widescreen with the icons and would like to classify them in neat folders to save space like the default icons do.
Yes, this will be possible in the future using a naming convention. The existing icons in fact already do that, but we haven’t made it yet possible for custom icons to be recognised the same way. You could for example add your own way-station flag by calling the file “Way-Station (My Flag Colour)”. The “My Flag Colour” would appear as an entry in the “Way-Station” submenu—and you could of course create your own groupings in the same fashion.
Yes, that would be a welcome feature. Judging from this post, the naming convention was already working in 2014, but presumably deactivated later. It should be fairly simple to reactivate it.
Mind you, I personally take a somewhat dim view of the naming convention approach–why not simply use sub-directories within the Icons directory of a project folder? However, that’s me thinking as a developer. As a user, bring on the naming convention!
It still works fine, but you are linking to a Mac thread, which might be the source of confusion given your stated platform tag here.
I sincerely doubt that any methodology will ever please everyone. For example I have little tolerance for excessive subfolder usage as it greatly increases simple navigation overhead and puts a burden on the necessity to use search more often, whereas with a flat folder and naming conventions everything is a simple few keystrokes away. The only time I find myself resorting to folders is when there are thousands of things. And I say that as a “developer” of sorts, too, but you’re also talking to someone that spent several years refining a naming convention system for filing information within a system designed to be flat.
Then again, for something as seldom and oft lightly used as an icon folder, navigation speed and organisational optimisation probably aren’t issues to worry too much about.
Not a clue, it isn’t in the public beta yet. Then again your platform tag suggests you use a Mac—so maybe try it out?
For example I have little tolerance for excessive subfolder usage as it greatly increases simple navigation overhead and puts a burden on the necessity to use search more often, whereas with a flat folder and naming conventions everything is a simple few keystrokes away. The only time I find myself resorting to folders is when there are thousands of things. And I say that as a “developer” of sorts, too, but you’re also talking to someone that spent several years refining a naming convention system for filing information within a system designed to be flat.
