4 ms·
> Every one of these tables is literally 300% taller than it needs to be Looks fine to me. The page is already pretty information dense, making it even more de
by root_axis 4y ago
> Every one of these tables is literally 300% taller than it needs to be
Looks fine to me. The page is already pretty information dense, making it even more dense isn't necessarily better, but it's all pretty subjective.
- mulmen 4y agoI’m talking about the whitespace within a row. There’s no reason to make a row in the table 3x taller than the text on the row. If you think 8 rows is all your users need that’s fine, but why waste all that space?
- moffkalast 4y agoWell there is a point to be made that if you don't stack rows without any spacing the user might actually be able to look left and right at different columns without losing sight which line they were even looking at. Can be partially solved by having alternating colour rows (and frankly it should've been a thing here), but ultimately this is far easier to read then your average excel sheet, at least to me. And frankly if you're displaying more than 8 rows, you need to add a damn scrollbar and search box, ain't nobody reading all of that. Humans can generally only focus on like 5 things at a time max anyway.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 4y agoMy eyes get lost in the expanse of empty pixels. Tight packing makes visual scanning easier.
- moffkalast 4y agoAre you viewing this on a TV?
- replwoacause 4y agoNo it doesn't.