-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 607
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Consider a better UX for the listings #282
Comments
Also looking for a more compact layout for each entry, so there is extra room for the description text: Original:
Proposal:
|
I think it should include more informations,like these: Releases
|
The younger version of me was geared towards efficency and complexity as I was told to do everywhere else. When I peaked complexity I suddenly started to appretiate the beauty of simplicity and minimalism, which are the correct way to nirvana dev. I've gone that road since then. and not going to look back ever again. That's why I advocate for C again after writing C++ for more than a decade; but that's another story. tl-dr; I'll make the list shorter and shorter. In fact, here we have a 2-columns layout I just figured out:
|
Also have an idea for this issue. Will merge first+second listings together; entries from first listing ( 1+C+PD ones) will have description in strong bold, whereas the others (either 2, C++ or MIT/BSD) will not be highlighted. Then the current tertiary list, which is small, will become a secondary minor appendix to the big main list. |
…ot correct for many cases (see: acronyms), but it helps on normalizing the UX somehow. See #282
In my opinion, that's worse. The two-column format allows you to scan down one column and read just that column ignoring the other more easily. That makes it faster/easier to scan for things you're looking for. Putting them on alternating lines makes the eye travel over both when it's trying to only read one or the other. My expectation is that skimming over the "what it does" column looking for either something specific (or just looking in general to get a sense of options) is the most common use case. |
Hey, we can talk about it, np. I understand the concerns but also i'd like to add that going two-columns fits much better in lower resolution scenarios like mine (1366 px with 150% dpi scaling); otherwise the descriptions may take a few lines long and the "vertical" aspect of it is even worse than what you showcased. We can still find even a better way all together. The changes are minimal and revertible (ie, replacing |
suggestion from @zpl-zak in Discord group: |
Well, my personal experience is that scrolling more often doesn't seem particularly slower to me with a scrollwheel, regardless of scale, whereas removing the table split definitely makes me slightly slower to locate and read. But, I mean, that's just me personally. Maybe it could be a page with JS to allow you to configure the formatting to user-preference, or based on page metrics. |
Also a note to future me: Using markdeep + .md would render everything nicely without too much trouble. Done that before. |
Meanwhile GH webpage materializes (if ever) thought about another variant,
|
You could also split the table into multiple tables, one for each 'category', and not have to include the category in the table at all. I didn't do this because it caused the table column horizontal positions to jump around as you scrolled to each new table, but if there's a way to make them consistent, that will pack things down quite a bit compared to above. |
Added a small, fixed-width, invisible image under the first column header to pre-allocate a minimum width. See both tables below. (it renders ok on Chrome at least):
|
Update: trick above does not render right on Chrome mobile. I'll think about it. |
Originally posted by @nothings in #213
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: