These seemingly just popped up overnight, things are aligned in weird ways and either too tight, on two lines, or too far apart…did some kind of formatting change go ahead?
I don’t have “before and after” comparisons but I always notice these kinds of changes right away!!
Yes. Earlier today some style changes were released, mostly aimed at better support for long taxon names. Previously, long name strings were sometimes wrapped onto new lines, and sometimes truncated with an ellipsis (…) added. The changes released today make it so long names wrap in almost all cases. When wrapping, other elements on the screen may be affected, resulting in some elements having extra spacing today where they maybe didn’t previously.
Personally, I think the location names got too squished on list view. That’s my only gripe, it makes the page twice as long when that happens. The taxon names are definitely not long enough to need that much space up there, unless it’s accounting for some sort of smallest possible screen resolution situation?
I agree, the location squishing/going to nine lines on that page makes it fairly unusable.
Agreed that the very long location names in your screenshot aren’t handled in the best way. We can look into improving that.
@pleary Patrick, put me down as NOT a fan of the newly formatted column widths. It’s mostly a waste of horizontal space and an unnecessary lengthening of (already long) lists. What taxon names require half of the screen width?
I’m presently working on a laptop where screen size is already reduced from my usual haunts on a desktop computer.
Sorry, but this new formatting doesn’t work for me either. It makes it really difficult to follow on a small screen and I’m sure looks pretty strange on a big screen as well.
Perhaps a compromise that truncates BOTH exceedingly long species names, and location names.
National park followed by National Parks?
Ellipsis to species is still useful, and we can click for the ssp
is this also an effect of the changed formatting?
With two IDs and the observation made 10hrs ago, it now looks the observation was 210 hrs ago instead
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.