# Spreadsheet styles - which do you prefer?



## cornflakegirl (Jan 19, 2009)

Please follow this link to a spreadsheet design article on the CIMA website. At the bottom of the page is a before and after shot of a sample spreadsheet. Which do you prefer?


----------



## mole999 (Jan 19, 2009)

The second is too fussy, what am i not being shown


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 19, 2009)

I wouldn't necessarily say that I really _like_ the choices made for each part of the second one.  But I _prefer_ it over the first.  More because I tend to put negatives in red w/ parentheses, bold subtotals and double-underline bottom line items.  I probably would have stopped there.


----------



## Norie (Jan 19, 2009)

I'd be more concerned with the structure of the data - why 4 different columns for each quarter.


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 19, 2009)

Norie said:


> why 4 different columns for each quarter.


 
Why does this strike you as odd?    I've seen reports with this type of overall layout.


----------



## Richard Schollar (Jan 19, 2009)

It's certainly easier to pick out important information in the After but I personally don't particularly like the styles & formatting chosen.


----------



## Marbles (Jan 19, 2009)

Neither of them look very good when the Headings aren't aligned with the data.


----------



## Andrew Fergus (Jan 19, 2009)

My personal opinion is that the second option is truly awful. The first could be tidied up in 3 simple steps, add underlining where needed, format the numbers to show commas and right align the headings. Simple is better IMHO. I see too much focus on formatting rather than content.


----------



## Smitty (Jan 19, 2009)

They both suck.


----------



## Norie (Jan 19, 2009)

Greg

Sure a report but surely not raw data.


----------



## Weaver (Jan 19, 2009)

I would be laughed out of the office for submitting v2.  And rightly so.


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 19, 2009)

Smitty said:


> They both suck.


Yes, but that wasn't Emma's question, was it?  Her was question was "which one sucks less?"


----------



## gardnertoo (Jan 19, 2009)

After is somewhat better, just based on the visual difference between totals and the items that roll up into those totals.  But I'm with Smitty, even the "improved" version needs a lot of help.


----------



## yytsunamiyy (Jan 19, 2009)

I would have to go with the consensus - both samples suck, but for pure ease of finding information the second is easier on the human eye - which I believe was the whole point of the exercise...



> *Query*
> 
> I’d like to make the data in my Excel spreadsheets more attractive and easier to read when I present it to other people. Do you have any tips?
> *Advice*
> ...


----------



## SydneyGeek (Jan 19, 2009)

Both suck. 

They went too far with the reporting styles in After, but it is important to be able to distinguish details from subtotals, and positive from negative. From that point of view After is better but not good.

Denis


----------



## Gerald Higgins (Jan 19, 2009)

2 sucks less, but not much less.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
 <o></o>
Grey background - why ???<o></o>
Italic text - why ???<o></o>
Some text black, some text blue, some text red - why ???<o></o>
There is no key to colour coding.<o></o>
All the red numbers are negative, but not all negative numbers are red - why ???<o></o>
Why are grid lines visible in some parts, but not in others ???<o></o>
Also, there is no indication of what units are being used.<o></o>
 <o></o>
And, like someone else said, the column headings should be aligned with the numbers.<o></o>
Also, the data columns are un-necessarily wide.<o></o>
<o></o>


----------



## Stormseed (Jan 19, 2009)

I do not find a difference in both of them except for the formatting. Depends on the user how he / she wants the data to be shown on the worksheet


----------



## cornflakegirl (Jan 20, 2009)

Andrew Fergus said:


> My personal opinion is that the second option is truly awful. The first could be tidied up in 3 simple steps, add underlining where needed, format the numbers to show commas and right align the headings. Simple is better IMHO. I see too much focus on formatting rather than content.



I'm with you on this one. Yes, the before needs some tidying - but the after is hideous! Less is more...

Clearly everyone who voted for the second version is mad!


----------



## Domski (Jan 20, 2009)

All reports I produce have to be able to be printed clearly on both colour and black and white printers and also conform to standards for people with poor eyesight to be able to read. With that in mind I'd say the second one would fail.

It's just that little bit too fussy and whilst it can be important to draw the audience's eye to the most important pieces of information being presented I don't think it works.

That said I'm pretty poor at making my spreadsheets look nice so tend to leave that to someone else.

Dom


----------



## Patience (Jan 20, 2009)

I agree in part, the second is over done, but as it is simply an example in a help file, doesn't it do what it sets out to do? It shows the asker of the question what the possibilities are. I wouldn't use half the formatting things they did here, but as a demonstration of what CAN be done, it works. 

Nothing is 'not being shown' as it is exactly the same as the first in content. Although I can't stand all the colours, it IS easier to find the data.

I don't like it, I wouldn't do it, but it is easier to read.


----------



## Thorin (Jan 20, 2009)

Couldn't agree more, but we need to remember that the style of formatting can be a personal thing. The example given is to highlight the fact the by formatting in certain ways the presentation can be improved and with appropriate use can aid in finding certain types of data quickly.


----------



## Gerald Higgins (Jan 20, 2009)

OK, there's obviously two important points here.

First of all, the second version clearly shows us that it's _possible_ to change formats, by using styles etc. If you're new to Excel, this could be a revelation for you. I'll need to re-read the accompanying article, but I don't think it claims to be a good format as such, just an illustration of what can be done. As such, criticisms of the format choices made in that version are perhaps a little harsh.

But secondly, the OP in this thread asked simply which do we prefer, and I think the comments about the failings of the second version are entirely valid in that context.


----------



## Jon von der Heyden (Jan 20, 2009)

2nd is better, but still pug ugly!! Looks like the sort of report I receive each day from our Munich HQ!

But I do find in my workplace that almost nobody ever uses styles, except my immediate team, who I have made use a book.xlt and sheet.xlt with a variety of custom styles. Any of course they have all added the styles drop down to their toolbar! Makes report appearance consistent and saves time formatting them. Styles rock!!!


----------



## cornflakegirl (Jan 20, 2009)

I've never used styles. This article does not encourage me to try them! (Your post does though, Jon  )


----------



## RoryA (Jan 20, 2009)

They are both fugly, so I have abstained from the vote!
Number two (aptly named) has the possible benefit of distracting from the actual meaning of the data, which can be useful on occasion...


----------



## Jon von der Heyden (Jan 20, 2009)

rorya said:


> They are both fugly, so I have abstained from the vote!
> Number two (aptly named) has the possible benefit of distracting from the actual meaning of the data, which can be useful on occasion...


 
I received a spreadsheet last week where the author used number format for all negatives to be red, but then also has a CF that the fill colour would be red if cell value <0.  Excellent way of concealing the adverse variances!


----------



## RoryA (Jan 20, 2009)

I like it!


----------



## Stormseed (Jan 20, 2009)

> They are both fugly



I know "ugly" - now I don't know anything about "fugly" ?


----------



## xlHammer (Jan 20, 2009)

If it doesn't work on a black & white printout you're going to have problems. Also, considering that this advice is coming from an accountancy organisation, the failure to put the units on is a bit of a fundamental error.

Emma, Do you think you should e-mail the bloke who wrote the article and let him know it's being picked apart?


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 20, 2009)

cornflakegirl said:


> I've never used styles. This article does not encourage me to try them! (Your post does though, Jon )


Styles can be very useful. Especially if you are frequently asked to make cosmetic changes. One quick change to a style and presto-chango, cosmetic change completed.



rorya said:


> ...fugly...


 Genius.  Where do you come up with these?



Stormseed said:


> I know "ugly" - now I don't know anything about "fugly" ?


Mind you, this is just a guess...copy and paste the following into the immediate window
	
	
	
	
	
	



```
s = "" : a = Split("34,102,42,42,42,105,110,103,34,32,43,32,34,117,103,108,121,34,32,61,32,34,102,117,103,108,121,34", ","): For i = LBound(a) To UBound(a) : s = s & Chr(a(i)) : Next i : Debug.Print s
```


----------



## RoryA (Jan 20, 2009)

Good guess!


----------



## Jon von der Heyden (Jan 20, 2009)

Stormseed said:


> I know "ugly" - now I don't know anything about "fugly" ?


 
Best you don't ask   I'll tell you offline if you really want to know.


----------



## Richard Schollar (Jan 20, 2009)

Yeah - Jon'll show you some pics of his previous girlfriends!


----------



## Domski (Jan 20, 2009)

RichardSchollar said:


> Yeah - Jon'll show you some pics of his previous girlfriends!



He's had more than one!!!


----------



## RoryA (Jan 20, 2009)

I suppose for a family friendly forum, I should have used 'pugly' instead...


----------



## Domski (Jan 20, 2009)

...or 'bugly' might be okay.


----------



## Jon von der Heyden (Jan 20, 2009)

RichardSchollar said:


> Yeah - Jon'll show you some pics of his previous girlfriends!


 
If I recall you used to drool all over my last one!


----------



## Richard Schollar (Jan 20, 2009)

Jon von der Heyden said:


> If I recall you used to drool all over my last one!


 
Still do when she takes me out for dinner


----------



## cornflakegirl (Jan 20, 2009)

xlHammer said:


> Emma, Do you think you should e-mail the bloke who wrote the article and let him know it's being picked apart?



I would have done, but too many people have voted for the second one! 

Greg - how come you're happy to spell out the C word in the immediate window, but not the F word...?


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 20, 2009)

cornflakegirl said:


> Greg - how come you're happy to spell out the C word in the immediate window, but not the F word...?


 
I would like to say that I was inspired by our newly-inaugurated 44<SUP>th</SUP> president's exhortations that we should all heed our better natures, and therefore I made a conscious decision to decrement the vulgarity ever so slightly. But I fear such a claim would be most fraudulent. 

'Twas naught but caprice, Miss Emma. However, you may feel free to alter the ...42,42,42... sequence to read ...117,99,107... should you find yourself so compelled.


----------



## Greg Truby (Jan 20, 2009)

_Crud, I'm locked out of editing..._ I wanted to add that my previous post was in no way a snide remark about our new president's inaugural speech, which I just listened to.  Indeed I thought his oration quite good.


----------



## steve case (Jan 21, 2009)

First thing I do when I get some spreadsheet with all sorts of fancy formatting is go about the business of getting it back to plain vanilla.


----------



## Weaver (Jan 28, 2009)

It always winds me up when people colour cells in to convey information in a DB type sheet (bad enough as it is) rather than drop in another field with the info, so at least you can filter or count it.


----------



## SydneyGeek (Jan 28, 2009)

> It always winds me up when people colour cells in to convey information in a DB type sheet (bad enough as it is) rather than drop in another field with the info, so at least you can filter or count it.


 
What, you want _data?_ 

Denis


----------



## Jon von der Heyden (Jan 28, 2009)

SydneyGeek said:


> What, you want _data?_
> 
> Denis



Nobody (where I work) ever makes sense of the data anyway!  The colour is less embarassing...

Ugh, I spend my life summarising colour coded spreadsheets.   I'm tempted to change my colleagues color palette to include only black and white!


----------



## SydneyGeek (Jan 28, 2009)

Sounds good to me!

Except, if you _really_ want to obscure information, a colourful chart and some well-chosen axis scales can go a long way 

Denis


----------

