[austinbeer]

Hi! totally understandable with search. I think we went with search because, for the user base, they usually have a specific topic or database in mind. For people who don't know to search for, we have the category sections below Absolutely we need a better null-search state! (I'd do nearest-match and topic pages, but one release at a time. And CRAZY to only do search at 10k items! i mean, i do love opinionated design... but don't you find it hard to browse so many items?

Density - i am often against highly dense pages cus, for me, scan-ability and legibility are the most important. Big text and just a couple items for page seem to fit the bill. But i usually go denser on search-result-pages or dataset pages since it's more of a comparison step.

I wish we had more visualizations and stories to put front and center. Believe me, they quickly become super contentious! But that is the vision...

[meowsnow]

What types of feedback did you get through end users so far regarding their expectations for information density?

[austinbeer]

It was mostly, when looking at search results, "is this the right dataset for me?" Particularly when many datasets have similar names or the title of the dataset was unclear. So we added descriptions and "quick-peaks/expand" in search results.

This is in contrast to the original version which was very dense tabular view, having people scroll sideways to parse or click into many pages what a dataset was about.