| 1 |
Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sebastian Pipping wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I have triggered report re-creation, your data is now included: |
| 5 |
>> http://smolt.hartwork.org:45678/static/stats/gentoo.html |
| 6 |
> |
| 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 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sebastian |
Archives