Spreadsheet styles - which do you prefer?

[Weaver]

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

 

[Greg Truby]

They both suck.

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

 

[gardnertoo]

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]

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

Take the illustration below. How easy is it to find the key data, or see which cells should be changed to facilitate updated information? How easy are these things in your own spreadsheets?

 

[SydneyGeek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.