Choosing a Density for an Analytics Dashboard
A generous, modern-looking redesign made a dashboard slower for the people who used it all day.
Definition
A decision case about information density: how a design that reviewed well internally reduced task efficiency for daily users, and how offering a preference resolved it.
Craft convention. True because the industry converged on it. Breaking it costs familiarity, not correctness.
On this plate
A composite scenario assembled from situations that recur across teams. It is written to teach reasoning rather than to report on a named company, and outcomes are stated directionally rather than as invented measurements.
Problem
After a visual redesign, experienced users complained the dashboard had become slower to use, while new users and stakeholders praised its clarity.
Context
An analytics product used daily by a small number of analysts and occasionally by a much larger number of managers. The redesign applied the company's marketing-site spacing scale to the product.
Constraints
- The visual refresh was already shipped and had executive support.
- Analysts represented a minority of users and a majority of revenue-linked usage.
- Screen sizes ranged from a laptop to a wall display.
- Touch target minimums applied because a proportion of use was on tablets.
Decision
Keep the new visual language and add a density control with three levels, implemented as a multiplier on the spacing tokens, defaulting to comfortable and remembered per user.
Rationale
Both groups were right. Occasional users benefited from the space; daily users lost the ability to see a full working set without scrolling, which cost them on every task. Density is a legitimate user preference rather than a single correct value, and implementing it as a token multiplier meant one set of components could serve all three levels.
Evidence used
- Task timing before and after the redesign, segmented by user tenure, which showed the two groups moving in opposite directions.
- Counting how many rows were visible without scrolling before and after.
- Interviews with analysts describing the scroll cost on a task they performed dozens of times a day.
- Verification that compact mode still met minimum target sizes on touch devices.
Trade-offs accepted
- Three densities to design, build and test rather than one.
- Screenshots in documentation and marketing no longer matched what every user saw.
- A settings decision added for users who did not need one, mitigated by a sensible default.
Outcome
Analyst task times returned to their pre-redesign levels in compact mode, and occasional users kept the more spacious default. The density setting became one of the most-used preferences in the product.
Alternatives considered
Revert the redesign
Why not: It would have discarded genuine improvements for occasional users, who are the majority by headcount.
Split into two products or two modes
Why not: Two full interfaces doubles maintenance and strands users who move between the roles.
Choose density automatically by screen size
Why not: Screen size does not indicate expertise. An analyst on a laptop needs compact; a manager on a large display does not.
Local chart
CASE·004 · Region XI · Grid F6
This entry and the entries it is stated to connect with. Each line is labelled with what the connection means.
Continue from here
Each link says what the connection is, so you can tell a principle from an alternative from a thing people mix this up with.
Applies when you are designing
Concepts behind this decision
What the reasoning in this case rests on.
- Target SizeA11Y·011 · Accessibility
- Dashboard UX ChecklistCHK·004 · Checklist
- Design TokensSYS·001 · Design system
- Flexibility and Efficiency of UseHEUR·007 · Heuristic
- Power Law of PracticeLAW·015 · Law
- DashboardsPAT·028 · Pattern
- DensityFND·016 · UI foundation
- Spacing SystemsFND·042 · UI foundation