On 25/07/2018 11:40, Daniel wrote:
On 25/07/2018 10:37, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Le 25/07/2018 à 09:08, Daniel a écrit :
Thanks. I think it looks good. I prefer it.
So we disagree ;)
Unfortunately ;)
Attached is a comparison with a PDF output (one with, roughly, the
same table size and one with, roughly, the same font size).
Note that when the table is larger in pdf, the rulles are thicker too
(they are in em). This makes sense, but the thickness here is to be
compared to the 'blackness' of the font (I am not sure of my
typographical technical terms). I still think that the top/bottom
lines are too thick.
I tend to disagree. But my two alternative suggestions (1) and (2) would
cover this without giving up head/body separation.
I take it that the thicker first and second lines are just eye cady
while the thicker line(s) in between fulfill the more important
function of making it easier to distinguish between, for example, the
head and the foot of the table and the body.
The thick top/bottom lines convey that the table is a formal table. It
is not eye candy, it is a WYSYWYM indicator.
The fact that incomplete les are thinner *is* eye candy. Only people
doing complicated tables care about it, and these people are supposed
to know what they are doing.
Even if you know what you are doing it can be helpful to have visual
guides. I am sure you could do (or maybe you do) programming in a plain
text editor. Still many people prefer editors that support highlighting.
Why again does the thicker line that separates head and body of the
table not help to get a better overview of the table?
I want to do something that encourages people to use formal tables
(there were talks about setting it as default), but do not attract too
much the eye. Having a thinner line for incomplete lines would be eye
candy IMO. But I am not a specialist in formal tables.
I don't see how a thicker line at the top and bottom of a table that
*indicates* a formal table encourages people to use that style. In
contrast a better separation in complex tables of the header and body
and footer may do so.
Anyway, here are a couple of alternatives with some reason for it:
(1) Make all thicker lines the same width (2px).
Reason: The thicker first and second line are not confused with other
lines because of their special location.
What do you call first and second? I (3), it looks like top/bottom,
but here ??
Yes, I mean top and bottom. The idea is: Having a slightly thicker
top/bottom rule than the head separation rule is more of an eye candy.
It would not hinder readability if all thick rules (top, bottom, header
separator) had the same thickness (2px).
(2) Have only the lines in between thick (2px).
Reason: The thicker first and second lines are only eye candy anyway.
???
Not sure what the question is here. So I hope my further explanation
helps. Above I explained why I think that concerning readability of the
table the top/bottom rules are eye candy because they don't help
separating anything (like head from body). So the thought is: leave them
at normal thickness (1px) instead.
(3) Have only the first and second line thick (2px), as in your first
version.
Reason: The thicker first and second lines are there only to indicate
that the table is formal/a booktab.
That was precisely my point.
I see. I guess we had different aims in mind. Yours was to distinguish
formal from non-formal tables. Mine was to enhance readability and
provide a structural indication of what the final table will look like
(which in turn might encourage people using it).
ps. A further but more complicated version of (1) is to simulate a
smaller thickness by using a 2px rule that consist of a black and half
transparent black line.
I apologise for just making clever suggestions without making my hands
dirty with programming. At the moment that is all I can do. Let me know
if it isn't helpful.
Daniel
