| 1 |
Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> I have triggered report re-creation, your data is now included: |
| 6 |
>>> http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo.html |
| 7 |
>> I notice an inconsistency. Everything is sorted by popularity, except |
| 8 |
>> "Archs", "Chosts", & "System profiles" - By design? It is hard to read |
| 9 |
>> at first glance and could get worse as more data is submitted. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> By design, yes. I made an exception with these as I felt it would not |
| 12 |
> be right with these tables. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In general a user can seek for the answer to (at least) these two |
| 15 |
> different questions: |
| 16 |
> - What's the top 1, top 2, top 3 |
| 17 |
> - How does item X (e.g. use flag "mp3") rank |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Doing both in a static table can only be done with JavaScript magic |
| 20 |
> that's currently beyond my expertise. |
| 21 |
> As a result I had to choose between sort-by-popularity and |
| 22 |
> sort-alphabetically. While a user can still answer the "how does item X |
| 23 |
> rank" question using browser text search determining the top N from the |
| 24 |
> table in his head alone can be quite a hard task. So I think the |
| 25 |
> sort-by-popularity approach mainly "hurts less". |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I'm open to suggestions on how to improve presentation of the data. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks for the explanation, I would just make it all sorted by |
| 30 |
popularity. Of course, just my opinion. :) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Jeremy |
Archives