What do you mean by "0-filling design"?

I find Ultorg's representation to be quite compact, usually. If you have a view with one column containing lots of nested results, the other columns will be mostly empty, but then the table layout might be the wrong choice, and other layout options are available.

I mean the pointless zeros in

1.00

2.00

3.10

which only prevent you from noticing when a number has real decimals

> I find Ultorg's representation to be quite compact, usually.

Check the website's first screenshot - the 2nd column the longest data point - 693 blue bar - takes less space than all the whitespace around it.

Or the tree view - check out how much space is wasted for the main indentation level - "Recycle bin". You could fit the whole extra data column in that space for something useful

Ah, I see about the zeros. I think there are some options for this.

The blue bar: there might be a red bar pointing to the left out of view that forces the white space between the bars and the numbers. There will be some extra white space to the left of the numbers, as nested tables are slightly indented (compare the indentation of the customer names and the products)—I think this is a good way of subtly showing the structure.

Tree view: “Recycle bin” does not have an arrow to unfold it but other items at its level do, so space for an arrow is reserved. Therefore it seems overly indented. (I am not bothered by this; if the actual tables are very wide, the entire side bar can be hidden, as far as I remember.)

I honestly found that main part of the interface strikes a very good balance between denseness and readability. And in any case, it is my experience (from just using the trial!) that Eirik can be quite swift about implementing features when there’s user demand. I imagine that extra number formatting options or reduced white space would be very much in the cards.

> there might be a red bar pointing to the left

There is already red bar above, it doesn't explain the waste, it's too small. But also it doesn't need to point to the left of the same spot, you can move it to the right to grow left - will be even easier to compare the absolut sizes.

> as nested tables are slightly indented

For nothing. Compare indentation of Product and Qty - both indented, so the indentation of Product is useless in signaling "nested". Headers is the only "reliable" place to read that info

> does not have an arrow

which doesn't need to be so big, you anyway should be able collapse/expand by clicking on the whole big field

> Therefore it seems overly indented

No, it is overly indented because the indent is too wide, especially for the first level - it shouldn't even exist, it's pointless separating the only Root from it's children with the same space as further levels where you can get confused, it's like the common fail of Jsons (which must have root {}) of wasting indentation space for each line

> entire side bar can be hidden.

Which is also no solution to this waste. Instead it should have a "condensed view" where you can still read the first couple of letters of Cat/Cust/Empl etc. If you want to be binary - either the tree is useful and should be visible at the limit and only disappera when you really need the last 1-2 columns it displaces, or it's not, and shouldn't be shown at all. That's useful efficiency

If you scroll down on the landing page, there are tons of cases with blue bars only going in one direction; I think the distance between the numbers and the bars is quite reasonable there. When I speak of red bars, I assume that there is a red bar of significant size somewhere down that column, resulting in the space here. That said, I would agree that this is not necessarily the best visualization to begin with; I don't think I would use it at all.

The entire "Line items" subtable is indented: its internal horizontal lines do not stretch all the way to the vertical line at the beginning of "Line items". However, the horizontal lines between the line items for different orders do. This subtly highlights where one order ends and the next begins; I think its quite clever. Also, the "Qty" could be made thinner if you wanted. But in the screenshot there is still space available to the right, so its not vital. (Also, there might be a three-digit Qty further down the table, which would make this the right width.)

I don't find the "Folders" side bar that vital and I'm sure it could be improved. When saying that I think the interface strikes a good balance, I'm focusing on the main view. However, I think that there could be extra root-level items if you add further data sources, and I also think that you can make the sidebar thinner, at which point you will only see Cat, Cust, etc. For a main screenshot having the full names visible does seem cleaner, though. (I'm not entirely sure that all of this is correct. I cannot test it--unfortunately, while I think that Ultorg is very smartly designed in many places, its license cost is not justifiable for my limited use cases.)