I started working on this, but first I want to make sure that the implications of this change are clear, and I would also like to understand what the language should be.

For starters, reading the comments in T346329 I'm not sure if this would apply to both percentages and numbers, or just numbers. I think this would be somewhat hard to implement for percentages. "Between X and Y" is an inclusive range (0 ≤ x ≤ n), whereas "less than X" is exclusive (x < n). Let's say we have "between 0 and 8.2%". How would you rephrase this with "less than"? "Less than 8.3%"? Also, for the number of "no response" the range could be anything, potentially even "Between 0% and 100%". How'd we phrase this? "Less than 100.1%"? "Less than 101%"? Both are ugly.

Doing it just for the numbers would be easier. However, I should still point out that in the 0%-100% range scenario, the X in "Less than X" would be equal to the number of participants plus 1, which is maybe also somewhat weird, but not as ugly as the percentages.

@gonyeahialam, @ifried: would love to hear your thoughts on this.

As a side note: I'd like to reiterate that the "Between 0% and 100%" scenario is not an edge case at all. In fact, as noted in the writeup, it happens whenever each option receives less than 5 answers, which would be especially likely for small events, and for questions with lots of choices with a mostly-uniform distribution (e.g., profession).

@Daimona my recommendation was for only numbers not percentages. So we can use Less than X for numbers only

@Daimona what do you think of using 'Less than or equal to X' for the No responses scenario you described?

In T349013#9268756, @gonyeahialam wrote:

@Daimona what do you think of using 'Less than or equal to X' for the No responses scenario you described?

That would sure remove the ambiguity, but maybe it wouldn't help with consistency? I.e., it would still be different from the "less than X" used in the other table rows.

Hello everyone! How about we go with "Less than X" for all cases that have numbers?While "Less than or equal to X" is more clear, the copy is quite long and it would be inconsistent with other table rows that say "Less than X." I think we should strive for consistency whenever possible so it is easier for people to compare the data points.

Also, one note: If we think "Less than" is a bit weird or confusing, we can use "X maximum" or "Up to X."

What do you think, @gonyeahialam and @Daimona?

In T349013#9272763, @ifried wrote:

Hello everyone! How about we go with "Less than X" for all cases that have numbers?While "Less than or equal to X" is more clear, the copy is quite long and it would be inconsistent with other table rows that say "Less than X." I think we should strive for consistency whenever possible so it is easier for people to compare the data points.

I agree, and this is doable, but as noted above, X might larger than the number of participants in certain circumstances. If you think that's fine, this would be an easy change.

Also, one note: If we think "Less than" is a bit weird or confusing, we can use "X maximum" or "Up to X."

That's also doable, but there's something about it that feels unnatural. I'm not quite sure what, though.

I have discussed this ticket with @Daimona, and I think we should leave the current behavior as is and see what feedback we get from organizers because, if we do this work, we will need to show ranges when the range does not start at 0, so this would create 2 different ways of showing the information for "No response." I find this more confusing than showing one way -- and, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that there is no ideal solution, so we can at least leave the status quo since we are aiming for MVP release and then we can see what feedback we can get and change in the future, if need be. So, in summary, this is not a blocker for release and I am removing it from the sprint.