#Desired Feature – Journey page: The layout is now correct. However, the map is way too small. Expand the margins so that the page is well utilized and everything is the proper size that it needs to be. Use the example from my friend’s website if needed (at /home/egmc/resume_portfolio).

Why Previous Agent Kept Missing the The Mark on this Request

I kept failing on the Journey section for a few concrete reasons:

  1. I treated it like a parameter-tuning problem instead of a visual-match problem. I kept adjusting widths, margins, map scale, and projection offsets, but the real request was to make it look right relative to your friend’s example. Small CSS and projection tweaks were not enough.

  2. I verified code changes instead of verifying the actual rendered experience. I repeatedly checked that the HTML/CSS/JS values changed in source and in docs/, but that is not the same as confirming that the page visually matched what you wanted.

  3. I relied too much on indirect signals. I used things like rendered HTML, projection numbers, flex widths, and Quarto output as proof that the fix was correct. For this problem, those were weak signals. The only strong signal was the page as it actually looked in a browser.

  4. I copied the structure of your friend’s page more than the behavior. I matched the broad layout pattern of left detail / center map / right timeline, but I did not reproduce the map occupancy, visual balance, and sizing closely enough.

  5. I kept making incremental edits after an unsatisfied result instead of resetting my approach. Once it was clear that “slightly wider” or “slightly higher scale” was still not solving it, I should have stopped doing local tweaks and rebuilt the Journey page against a tighter target.

  6. I did not define a hard acceptance test. I should have treated the request as: “The map must visually dominate the center column, use the available page width, and match the friend’s page closely enough that the difference is minor rather than structural.” I did not use that as the pass/fail bar.

The technical issue underneath

The Journey page is not just static layout. It mixes:

  • Quarto page layout rules
  • custom flex layout overrides
  • SVG map sizing
  • D3 projection scale and translation
  • different route extents than your friend’s page

I kept changing one or two of those layers at a time. The result was technically modified code, but not a reliably correct final composition.

What I should have done instead

  1. Compare the Journey page against your friend’s page as a visual reference first, not just as code reference.
  2. Rebuild the center map sizing around an explicit target for how much of the page it should occupy.
  3. Validate the rendered result visually before saying it was fixed.
  4. Avoid claiming success based only on source inspection and generated HTML.

Bottom line

The failure was not that the code did not change. The failure was that I used code-level verification for a problem that needed visual verification, and I kept applying incremental tweaks after it was already clear that approach was not reliably satisfying your request.