The clusters arenāt in alphabetical order ā only the articles within clusters.
Oh man, youāre right, and I canāt see how I thought it was alphabetical except maybe that I noticed one case where one cluster came before the next one alphabetically and then didnāt check my theory. Gonna pin that obvious error of mine on jet lag after a long flight.
Those heuristics sound good to me.
As for aligning cluster names horizontally, it seems like this is already done for āOrganizationsā by just having (sometimes large-ish) gaps at the bottom of some clusters, and it seems like that looks ok to me? So maybe just do that?
And/āor you could do a vertical version of the ājustifiedā setting that Word and GDocs offers? I.e., you could have the vertical space between bullet points be larger or smaller depending on whether the cluster is less populated or more populated than those itās horizontally next to?
Oh man, youāre right, and I canāt see how I thought it was alphabetical except maybe that I noticed one case where one cluster came before the next one alphabetically and then didnāt check my theory. Gonna pin that obvious error of mine on jet lag after a long flight.
Those heuristics sound good to me.
As for aligning cluster names horizontally, it seems like this is already done for āOrganizationsā by just having (sometimes large-ish) gaps at the bottom of some clusters, and it seems like that looks ok to me? So maybe just do that?
And/āor you could do a vertical version of the ājustifiedā setting that Word and GDocs offers? I.e., you could have the vertical space between bullet points be larger or smaller depending on whether the cluster is less populated or more populated than those itās horizontally next to?