The clusters arenāt in alphabetical order ā only the articles within clusters.
The clusters are arranged according to a couple of heuristics that I value about equally:
Try to make the columns of roughly equal length
Have the āotherā cluster near the bottom-right of the section (seems natural for that to be the last thing people look at)
Have related clusters close together (e.g. āeffective givingā and ācareer choiceā)
Iād prefer to have all the cluster names aligned horizontally, as on the LW Concepts page, but our extremely varied column lengths discourage that for now (this might change as we continue to add new articles, look at new ways to sort the page, etc.)
If anyone has an idea for making the page better-sorted and/āor more evenly arranged, Iām all ears. Graphic design isnāt my forte and the current version is quite rough.
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?
The clusters arenāt in alphabetical order ā only the articles within clusters.
The clusters are arranged according to a couple of heuristics that I value about equally:
Try to make the columns of roughly equal length
Have the āotherā cluster near the bottom-right of the section (seems natural for that to be the last thing people look at)
Have related clusters close together (e.g. āeffective givingā and ācareer choiceā)
Iād prefer to have all the cluster names aligned horizontally, as on the LW Concepts page, but our extremely varied column lengths discourage that for now (this might change as we continue to add new articles, look at new ways to sort the page, etc.)
If anyone has an idea for making the page better-sorted and/āor more evenly arranged, Iām all ears. Graphic design isnāt my forte and the current version is quite rough.
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?