I make my tables like this guide recommends, but more because I know that it's the "professional", "publication quality" way that the people "in the know" prefer. I myself don't really feel that strongly about vertical lines but I avoid them to not look ignorant.
It says a lot that the first slide doesn't even say which is the good one and takes is for granted ("Easy decision, isn’t it?") but some here have thought the bad ones are the good ones.
Shows that it's more of a fashion thing. (Not counting the intentional mistakes in the "bad version" like kerning "fi lter" and other spacing errors in the math, like the exponent in the top right formula -- seriously why introduce those additional mistakes, why not just make the tables themselves different?)
> It says a lot that the first slide doesn't even say which is the good one and takes is for granted ("Easy decision, isn’t it?") but some here have thought the bad ones are the good ones.
It's because people on HN loves to be contrarians. The tables with the double lines really do look like garbage. The examples aren't doctored. One variant is what you get with Latex's builtin table commands, the other with the booktabs package.
It says a lot that the first slide doesn't even say which is the good one and takes is for granted ("Easy decision, isn’t it?") but some here have thought the bad ones are the good ones.
Shows that it's more of a fashion thing. (Not counting the intentional mistakes in the "bad version" like kerning "fi lter" and other spacing errors in the math, like the exponent in the top right formula -- seriously why introduce those additional mistakes, why not just make the tables themselves different?)