Replies: 3 comments
-
Hi and thanks for the suggestion! While I agree that it could be useful at times I think there is some things we need to consider here first:
I'm happy to discuss it some more but right now I'm leaning towards keeping it as is. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If there is that many knock on effects and other things that need changed, then maybe my suggestion was not worthwhile after all. Thanks for considering it though. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think it was a great idea, and thanks for raising the problem of missing the difference :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
There are times when solar is just getting started for the day in my BA, where the web UI display shows XXX kW / YYY MW. The numbers XXX and YYY are similar enough that if I glanced at it too quickly, I might think it was XXX MW / YYY MW. Consider requiring the units on the same XXX / YYY line to be the same, so that it would instead display 0.X MW / YYY MW (the leading zero is important, please include that). If the value is too small to be meaningful at the MW scale, maybe just display as <0.01 MW / YYY MW.
In the same vein, but a little further, if the maximum value of any item for the geographic area (including whole capacity of the BA) is < 10GW, consider keeping the units in entirely MW. Therefore, 5 GW would be 5000MW. At 10GW and above, everything should be in GW units only.
I realize that this will hide some data granularity for very small values, but I think that is a worthwhile trade for some consistency in units, and easier to visually scan data.
Thanks
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions