Board Thread:New Features/@comment-26339491-20191016152503/@comment-35455167-20200102224607

Banarama wrote: A content dense website with layers upon layers of navigation is obviously a very different situation from basic communication. Your initial gripe with Discussions was that it had too much extra space, but in the example you give the issue is that the website is burying its excess forms and pages. If anything, Discussions is the polar opposite. It still remains that Discussions poorly use the real estate available when viewed on desktop. You either have huge gutters with no content or you have images that resize themselves to fit-to-width, making them several page-heights tall. And there are several of these kinds of images near the top of every Discussion I have looked at. The alternative is to resize the browser window, making uncomfortably low characters per line, once you get to the actual content you want to read.

The spacing issue is not even the most problematic issue with Discussions. The three things Andrewds1021 listed are very problematic, imo.

Edit:  From the Best Practices blog:

Like all publications, articles should add design elements (usually with templates to inform and to break up blocks of text visually. These visual placeholders improve the readability and usability of articles, and can improve discoverability. At the point that these dominate the narrative text, they begin to lose usability. The same is also true for infoboxes: moderately sized infoboxes make for good summaries of the article's topic and content, but overly long infoboxes — we've seen some that are as tall as some rooms! — are not helpful and drive readers away. An infobox suffering from too much information (i.e. "infobox creep") should be reduced to the height of a screen on a typical desktop. Emphasis mine.  Same thing goes for images as for infoboxes, non?