Our UI supports small (32px wide), medium (64px) and large buttons (96px).

Now need appeared to add 48px wide buttons and it would be nice not to rename all the rest, just to give them a name which will fit them between 'small' and 'medium'. Can you suggest that?

Informal names are okay.

  • 9
    you could also have interesting feedback on ux.stackexchange.com Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 16:48
  • 3
    "No'-as-big-as-Medium-but-bigger-than-Small" (as Terry Pratchett's Pictsies would say)? Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 17:33
  • @TimLymington, Pratchett would have had a character (Medium Dave Lilywhite, maybe?) call it "extra medium".
    – JeffSahol
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 18:17
  • 4
    from a usability perspective, you are doing it wrong if you need a label for every size. Labels are meaningless in such a respect, as are pixels (could you mentally visualize 96px if you werent one of the developers?) ask how you can improve your approach on ux.stackexchange
    – n00b
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 19:52
  • 1
    Why wouldn't it be nice to rename the rest? As one of the answers mentions, using a 'extra-large' label might be suitable.
    – dwjohnston
    Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 4:59

21 Answers 21


As a neologism, it can be smedium

There are urbandictionary entries also. Here is one:

when a size small is too small and the size medium is too big you are a size smedium!!

They don't have my size I can't fit the small or the medium if only they had a smedium!

Other than that, you can use different degrees of small like extra small. So small fits between extra small and medium.

Note: I treated the question as context-free as well for future reference. You can also get useful answers about user interface/technical approaches on ux.stackexchange.com

  • 7
    +1 Smedium is a great word. I'm going to have to use that often enough to remember it. "No, actually, it's not small at all, I think you'll find it's closer to smedium, so there."
    – Frank
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:46
  • Or smish, halfway between smallish and mediumish.
    – bib
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 15:00
  • 3
    You might as well make up a gibberish word as use smedium.
    – Oldcat
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 16:51
  • 3
    @Oldcat I think he just did
    – Tim S.
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 19:45
  • 1
    Also pronounced/spelled Schmedium on occasion Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 20:41

Keeping the same convention, combine the two?

Small, Medium-small, Medium, Large

  • There's an ambiguity in this name, as in 'very small, medium-small, larger-than-small'.
    – SF.
    Commented Apr 17, 2014 at 6:52

I go with "medium-small" (with or without the hyphen).

The size between medium and small is like the direction between North and West (Northwest)

Similarly, the size between Medium and Large is Medium-Large,

This also fits nicely with how we order steaks: Rare Medium-Rare Medium Medium-Well Well Done

  • 2
    Using any other answer would be a mis-steak
    – Joe Harper
    Commented Apr 16, 2014 at 9:16

Several user interfaces use compact as another word for “small.” For example, Gmail and Google Docs offer compact controls as a slightly-tighter-than-medium setting. It’s also an established term for small cars.


smaller might be OK as long as you take medium to mean 'normal'.

Not quite the same as CSS font-size 'smaller' but I think the meaning is clear, it's not medium and it's not small.

smallish if you prefer.

Learn the lesson not to call 'styles' by a common enumeration, small=size32, medium=size64, large=size96. Then you can add in as many different sizes as you want, you can easily slip in a size48 without worrying about any knock on effect to other styles.

  • 6
    Smallish is good. Smaller should be smaller than small, though.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:54
  • 2
    I'm afraid smaller doesn't cut it, because there's no obvious way to indicate whether you mean smaller than medium or smaller than small. In which context I would just note that the "subtitle font size" selection control in VLC media player uses smaller and larger for the two extremes (beyond small and large). Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 14:57
  • I had it in my mind that the 'naming' was internal and only the developers would have to know that smaller came between medium and small, I guess if that was the case this question would be on SO rather than here.
    – Frank
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 15:10

small (32px wide), small-plus (48px), medium (64px), medium-plus (80px) and large (96px).

Adding plus immediately after the adjective effectively shows it is the next size up, and it's easily shortened to small + and medium +


You should probably bite the bullet and rename your existing "small" to "extra small", then call your new size "small". Every other answer, although valid, will confuse your users.

  • I like this approach, although my recommendation would be to go in the other direction, so that the four button sizes are ultimately small, medium, large, and extra large. (Or, if the O.P. would prefer a single word, jumbo could be used instead of extra large.)
    – J.R.
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 20:19

Personally, I would add the exact sizes to all the buttons and leave the 48 pixel button without a second label.

Small (32 px) -- (48 px) -- Medium (64px) -- Large (96 px)

  • 2
    This would work, if they add a size between medium and large as well, such that the scaling is consistent.
    – n00b
    Commented Apr 14, 2014 at 19:53
  • I need to use textual name without digits in several places.
    – SF.
    Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 20:30

I'm seriously considering SUBMEDIUM as 'smaller than medium'.

It doesn't clearly state to be middle between the two but gives a clear depiction of the order.

  • 1
    You could similarly use UBERSMALL.
    – Oldcat
    Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 23:24

small / medium / large / jumbo

I like the idea of creating an extra size on the large end of the spectrum rather than the small end of the spectrum because of the difference in sizes.

32 / 48 / 64 have a difference of 16 between them and 64 / 96 have a difference of 32.

"Jumbo" is also a fun word and seems to connote inordinately large.

I used to work at a concession stand that had only one size of drink. Only the drink price was listed. People would often ask what size it was. I would say, "We only have one size: double extra jumbo!" poking fun at the crazy names and sizes of portions in movie theaters.


How about "MS" for "medium small?"

For example, ST stands for small tall, MS for medium small, and ML for medium large. Here's a list of the most common wetsuit sizes available.

  • 1
    Those abbreviations are definitely region-specific! I've _never- heard of "ST/ML". Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 10:50
  • @TorbenGundtofte-Bruun Those are sizes specifically applied to wetsuits.
    – Elian
    Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 11:32
  • Thanks for the clarification. Still: no, not in my part of the world :-) Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 11:35

"Under-medium" or "medium-minus" would leave room for "over-small" or "small-plus".



If Starbucks can create an arbitrary and dissonant list of names for a partial ordering of volumes, so can you.


I have done a lot of websites with inventory (mainly this applies to shirts) and have always combined. I am leaving this as my own answer because every other answer is combining the opposite as I have seen/used. To me it is always the smallest first.

Here are the default sizes I set in the back end for shirts for one company.  

- xxx-small
- xx-small
- x-small
- small
- small/medium
- medium
- medium/large
- large
- x-large
- xx-large
- xxx-large
- xxxx-large
- xxxxx-large

Note that this is the available options I have for the store to choose from. I don't think they have ever chosen all for one shirt. For instance most women clothing goes from x-small to xx-large. Also they might not use any of the "in-between" sizes. You really shouldn't do this unless you are very very specific on what size your small and medium would be. The only differences between sites is that some use the dash - so "small-medium", some abbreviate - so "s/m", and some use numbers for the x's - so "4x-large". Never used a bigger size first nor a smedium. Might be a cool size for a drink but I am not sure a serious site would use it for clothing or something like that.


smallish, not completely small, just a little bit.



That way you get to have no digits in the name of the size and it's pretty obvious what the size is without context (unlike other confusing propositions).

Analogically to compass point naming convention, 48px would be right between 32px and 64px on your scale.

32 px      48 px        64 px        72 px       92 px
Small − Small-Medium − Medium − (Medium-Large) − Large


Would Thumbnail work?

Wordpress uses Thumbnail as the description for its small image sizes.

Wikipedia description for Thumbnail:

Thumbnails are reduced-size versions of pictures, used to help in recognizing and organizing them, serving the same role for images as a normal text index does for words.


For my user interface elements, I've adopted Bootstrap's sizing system: xs, sm, md, lg. It works nicely in all my scenareos.

  1. Re-name what you currently call "small" to "tiny." Now …
  2. … you can have "tiny", "small", and "medium" as you wished.

Glad to be of help!


You could take a nod from TeX and use capitalisation provided that it fits your use case.

small -> Small -> SMALL -> medium -> Medium -> MEDIUM -> large -> Large -> LARGE

...would be your new spectrum of possibilities.


Using Sydney coffee sizes as a guide, how about Regular or Normal?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.