Putting a Data Table on a Phone
Hiding columns on small screens made the table tidy and removed the data field staff had opened it to see.
Definition
A decision case about responsive data tables: why column hiding failed, and why horizontal scrolling was the better answer despite reviewing worse.
Craft convention. True because the industry converged on it. Breaking it costs familiarity, not correctness.
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
Field engineers using the product on phones were calling the office to ask for information that was in the table but hidden on their screen.
Context
A job management product with a twelve-column job list. The responsive implementation hid all but three columns below the tablet breakpoint, choosing which to keep based on what looked most important in a review.
Constraints
- Field use was almost entirely on phones, frequently one-handed and outdoors.
- Which columns mattered varied by job type and by engineer.
- Connectivity was unreliable, so a detail view per row meant a round trip that often failed.
- The table was also used on desktop by dispatchers, who needed all twelve columns.
Decision
Keep every column and wrap the table in a labelled, keyboard-focusable horizontal scroll container, with the job reference column pinned to the left edge.
Rationale
Hidden data is unreachable data. Horizontal scrolling is widely disliked in design reviews and is understood by users, who scroll horizontally in maps and image galleries without difficulty. Pinning the identifying column meant a scrolled row was never ambiguous. WCAG explicitly exempts tables from the reflow requirement precisely because this trade exists.
Evidence used
- Call logs from the office showing which fields were being requested by phone.
- Contextual observation of engineers using the product on site, which showed one-handed use and frequent connectivity failures.
- Testing the scroll container with a screen reader and with keyboard only.
- Confirming that the exemption in WCAG 1.4.10 covered this case.
Trade-offs accepted
- Horizontal scrolling reviewed poorly with stakeholders, who described it as unfinished.
- The pinned column reduced the visible width of the scrolling area.
- Additional work to make the scroll container accessible, since a plain overflow container is not keyboard focusable by default.
Outcome
Calls to the office asking for job details fell sharply. Engineers reported the table as usable rather than as good, which was the correct outcome for a tool used in the rain.
Alternatives considered
A card per row on small screens
Why not: Cards prevent comparison down a column, which was the main reason the list existed. They also made the visible set much shorter.
A user-configurable column set
Why not: It was added later as an enhancement, but it cannot be the primary solution: a new engineer has no configuration and needs the data on day one.
Tap through to a detail view
Why not: A round trip on unreliable connectivity, for information that could have been on screen already.
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.
- Reflow and ZoomAccessibility
- Mobile UX ChecklistChecklist
- Data TableComponent
- Mobile Interaction PatternsPattern
- Contextual InquiryResearch method
- Adaptive LayoutUI foundation
- Responsive LayoutUI foundation