You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Was speaking to an educated user (knows all about noise predictions etc.).
What he initially started to do was enter the distance to receptor in the reference box. He didn't look properly though. But, it may be an idea to define "Noise source" "site environment" and "SPL at receptor" sections for each plant a bit better. This may be helpful for plant way down the list that are quite detached from the headers.
Maybe not. What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Those headers should probably be sticky headers. That is, they should stick
to the top of the window when the hit it and remain there while the rest of
the content scrolls underneath.
Was speaking to an educated user (knows all about noise predictions etc.).
What he initially started to do was enter the distance to receptor in the
reference box. He didn't look properly though. But, it may be an idea to
define "Noise source" "site environment" and "SPL at receptor" sections for
each plant a bit better. This may be helpful for plant way down the list
that are quite detached from the headers.
Maybe not. What do you think?
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/13
.
Those headers should probably be sticky headers. That is, they should stick
to the top of the window when the hit it and remain there while the rest of
the content scrolls underneath.
Was speaking to an educated user (knows all about noise predictions etc.).
What he initially started to do was enter the distance to receptor in the
reference box. He didn't look properly though. But, it may be an idea to
define "Noise source" "site environment" and "SPL at receptor" sections for
each plant a bit better. This may be helpful for plant way down the list
that are quite detached from the headers.
Maybe not. What do you think?
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/13
.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
Was speaking to an educated user (knows all about noise predictions etc.).
What he initially started to do was enter the distance to receptor in the reference box. He didn't look properly though. But, it may be an idea to define "Noise source" "site environment" and "SPL at receptor" sections for each plant a bit better. This may be helpful for plant way down the list that are quite detached from the headers.
Maybe not. What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: