Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-15636815-20141126001742/@comment-15636815-20141127003619

Old business:
 * I agree that having the calculation section at the end would result in far fewer views. In the page's current layout, the TOC appears very close to the top of the page when the page loads, and users can see the TOC without scrolling. That should be sufficient to allow users to skip directly to the tables. If it's not, we can discuss rearranging the order of the sections.
 * Thanks for the tip about consistency of table appearance. You're definitely right that we should ditch the borders. I'll play with them on Thanksgiving, if family time allows, or Friday otherwise.
 * As for the per-minute calculation, I never considered that aspect. I added a new section to the bottom of WorkshopLT that shows those figures. I'll need to de-border the table, of course. Other than that, what do you think?

New business:
 * I changed "Trip Time" to "Trip Length" throughout the page. Saying "length" just seems more intuitive to me. If others prefer the original term, I can change it back.
 * As for the multiple destination names per trip length (See what I mean? LOL), what if we removed the destination names completely from the yield table and created a separate table for them? The names are irrelevant to the yield calculations. Matching the correct name with the correct engine type and cargo type would add unnecessary complexity to the yield table, but would work just fine by themselves.
 * Idea: Assuming we move the destination names out of the yield table, what about combining the two yield tables into one? In other words, what about putting "20 minutes" in with the other trip lengths? If we did combine the tables, "20 minutes" would need a footnote to explain why its numbers don't conform to the pattern established by the other trip lengths. The biggest reason to combine the tables is to save space on a page that is growing rapidly. The biggest argument against combining the tables would be potential confusion; I'm hoping the aforementioned footnote would take care of any confusion, but you never know.
 * In the main yield table, each column uses a different number of decimal places, based on the level of accuracy needed in each column. Is this okay, or would the table look better if each column displayed 2 decimal places, regardless of need?

Awaiting responses from any and all....