1

I'm trying to indicate a Subtotal (83% in the image below) and then a total (83+17=100) below that.

Options I'm considering (but don't particularly like):

  • The "sum" line above 83%
  • Making the second "sum" line (above Total) a double line
  • Putting a box above each total to show what it sums (so a box around whole column from 9 ...5, from 30%...63% and 83% to 17%
  • 3 increasing darkness of shade ( #, Subtotal#, Total#) (second screen shot below)
  • Similar to above but just black (or maybe black+italics) and black + bold (screen 3)

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

6

The table is not organized in proper way, so you are trying to overcome this issue with your options. The problems are:
enter image description here

  1. Established reading pattern (by rows) makes it hard to distinguish the number (83%) as subtotal. It is perceived as normal row rather than subtotal one.
  2. Placing missed items info within the table is a logic error. The format of this row doesn't correspond to the table. In particular, the number of missed items (5) is placed in correct column, which is wrong.

The right solution is more radical than your options. Try to re-organize the table, taking the stats out of the table. A possible solution could be as follows:
enter image description here

  • Excellent solution. Is there any reason that you used "Items" in the 2nd to last row but not in the row above "Correct" ? – Clay Nichols Jan 17 '14 at 2:01
  • Sorry, @Clay, cannot understand the question. Anyway, it's just an idea for fixing the table. – Alexey Kolchenko Jan 17 '14 at 8:49
  • I think your insight (the table was fundamentally wrong) was spot on. Rephrasing q: You included "Items" in front of 'missed' but not in front of 'correct' or 'total'. Seems like it should be in front of all of them or none of them (for consistency). BUT... I thought you perhaps left that off the 'correct' and 'total' for a reason. – Clay Nichols Jan 18 '14 at 17:01
  • @ClayNichols, No special reason, still repeating "items" three times is not good idea, as it brings visual complexity and excessiveness. – Alexey Kolchenko Jan 18 '14 at 17:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.