For me, the current version is better. And in general, I don't get the obsession of designers to have text padded as much as possible. I like low padding and small fonts (unless it is put to extreme; but on good sites it never happens, whereas "overpadding" is more than common).
Perhaps it is about density of information.
Perhaps it is that I like to have a very different spacing between two lines of the same paragraphs and two lines with a paragraph break. (So my brain can effortlessly divide it into parts.)
Perhaps... it is just a matter of taste. But I guess I am not the only one.
I think it's less about padding-for-padding's-sake and more about maintaining symmetry in design. Notice that both the author's changes were fundamentally just restoring symmetry to elements within a box layout.
In this particular case the symmetry makes some sense. But I would rather cut the top (which is wasting a lot of space) than padded the bottom to match the top.
Comments
For me, the current version is better. And in general, I don't get the obsession of designers to have text padded as much as possible. I like low padding and small fonts (unless it is put to extreme; but on good sites it never happens, whereas "overpadding" is more than common).
Perhaps it is about density of information.
Perhaps it is that I like to have a very different spacing between two lines of the same paragraphs and two lines with a paragraph break. (So my brain can effortlessly divide it into parts.)
Perhaps... it is just a matter of taste. But I guess I am not the only one.
I think it's less about padding-for-padding's-sake and more about maintaining symmetry in design. Notice that both the author's changes were fundamentally just restoring symmetry to elements within a box layout.
In this particular case the symmetry makes some sense. But I would rather cut the top (which is wasting a lot of space) than padded the bottom to match the top.