TEXT HERE
If the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.
Quote from: gongora on 06/21/2017 05:28 pmIf the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.It occurs to me that if you abbreviate the launch site as K for Kennedy (LC39A), C for Canaveral (LC40), V for Vandenberg and B for Boca Chica, you could save three extra characters in width :-)
Quote from: rosbif73 on 06/22/2017 11:35 amQuote from: gongora on 06/21/2017 05:28 pmIf the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.It occurs to me that if you abbreviate the launch site as K for Kennedy (LC39A), C for Canaveral (LC40), V for Vandenberg and B for Boca Chica, you could save three extra characters in width :-)It doesn't save much because future flights would be listed like K/C, C/B, K/C/B. Unless you add E for launching East from somewhere.
...I now leave the rest of you to discuss the merits of one or the other format, [table] or fixed-width text. Unsurprisingly, I think I prefer the [table]-based format, but perhaps there are easy improvements to it, too.
I'm not sure how to say this as respectfully as possible: bleck! It is now much less readable for me. On my laptop (Chrome on a MacBook) I have plenty of screen width and it only uses a very little of the space. The font is very small and blocky. When I enlarge the page the font is large and blocky.I very much appreciate all the great work on maintaining this list. I'm trying to provide feedback on the new format. Please, please, don't take this as a lack of gratitude for the diligent and consistent effort!
I can tell you one thing it looks terrible on Tapatalk on my iPhone 6S+. The text looks far too big and even somewhat hard to look at when colours are used.