I'm looking for a descriptive words to indicate "smaller than the standard version".

I have a html form with some inputs. The inputs come in sizes (eg small, normal, large). Those sizes have a specific width.
Now, I have a version with a small button (in this case an X to delete). That button has a small width. I want the previous mentioned inputs to be a bit smaller, but "smaller" is confusing as it can also mean 'a smaller input' which can be confused with the input[size=small].

[--------------------] <- large
[-----------------][x] <- large + ??

[---------------] <- normal
[------------][x] <- normal + ??

[-------] <- small
[----][x] <- small + ??

Two words could be used in it really has to, but you work like this:
<input class="normal someWord" />

  • It is better if you stick with describing it in more than one word, else it might get confusing for whoever reads it. – satnam Aug 17 '17 at 13:21
  • Two words could be used in it really has to, but you work like this: <input class="normal someWord" />, the reader should know approx. what is going on. – Martijn Aug 17 '17 at 13:24
  • 1
    If it relates to the width then 'narrow' and 'wide' are the relevant adjectives. I also think 'standard' is better than 'normal' (as in 'standard width'). – Stefan Aug 17 '17 at 16:47
  • 1
    Also 'broad' and 'slim' – Stefan Aug 17 '17 at 16:49
  • Just follow what's already been done: archive-2_0_3.lightningdesignsystem.com/components/utilities/… – lux Aug 18 '17 at 0:36

I suppose mini would suit this case. Also compact.

Although mini doesn't exactly mean smaller than the standard version, it comes close. I would prefer mini over compact, as mini is pretty has pretty common colloquial usage Ex: Ipod mini, Memory card sizes etc.

| improve this answer | |

From the context of your question it looks like the "smaller" versions are the same as the "standard" versions with a little bit cut off. In that case maybe something like <input class="normal truncated" />, <input class="normal clipped" /> or <input class="normal trimmed" /> might suit your needs? The words I have suggested have the following definitions


to shorten by or as if by cutting off


to cut off the distal or outer part of


to remove by or as if by cutting

| improve this answer | |
  • Hi, these are not exactly what I'm looking for, but they're quite close! Trancated is a term I cant use (means something else), but the others are close, thanks – Martijn Aug 18 '17 at 7:12

Surely the word for “smaller version of” is diminutive? But that's not important right now, and don't call me Shirley!

Seriously, I'd try the good old-fashioned NIST prefixes:

micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, etc. 

See: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

That way you have an established order, plus you get the bonus of teaching your users something with broad applicability!

| improve this answer | |
  • Hi 'Shirley', I do like this was of thinking but in my case that would get weird (unless I misunderstand): class="large femto" will still not really explain that it's a bit smaller. Thanks for the answer though :) – Martijn Aug 18 '17 at 7:08

My Bad. In my previous response (now deleted), I misunderstood your intent and I gave you a fourth size: “Extra Small", which is not what you are looking for.

Now that I understand that your intention is to create a smaller version of each of the three sizes, I suggest that:

1. You may want to consider changing the name of the middle size from “normal” to “medium” (unless changing it is beyond your control).

2. An appropriate word for downsizing each of the three sizes might be “petite”.

[--------------------] <- large

[-----------------][x] <- large + petite

[---------------] <- medium

[------------][x] <- medium + petite

[-------] <- small

[----][x] <- small + petite

3. Another word for downsizing each of the three sizes might be “minus” (or "narrow").

[--------------------] <- large

[-----------------][x] <- large + minus

[---------------] <- medium

[------------][x] <- medium + minus

[-------] <- small

[----][x] <- small + minus

4. As an alternative to downsizing, you might consider up-sizing – adding a word like, “plus” to the larger version (or "wide").

[-----------------][x] <- large + plus

[--------------------] <- large

[-------------[x] <- medium + plus

[---------------] <- medium

[----[x] <- small + plus

[------] <- small

| improve this answer | |

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