The history shows it correctly, history is exactly that. Your first measurement which is the oldest goes to the bottom of the pile while your last measurement which is the latest comes to the top.
Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delayed reply. The main take away is that the order is different. Different people have different expectations of history with some preferring reverse chronological order and some preferring chronological. It is more convenient to have the most recent measurements at the top because it reduces the need to page through the data. I think the design might still be a little better if the measurements were numbered to match that order. If I were undertaking an activity where I was tracking something with the history I would want it to show that my first measurement was #1 and my tenth as #10. With the current design the measurement history is effectively renumbered with every measurement.
The history shows it correctly, history is exactly that. Your first measurement which is the oldest goes to the bottom of the pile while your last measurement which is the latest comes to the top.
Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delayed reply. The main take away is that the order is different. Different people have different expectations of history with some preferring reverse chronological order and some preferring chronological. It is more convenient to have the most recent measurements at the top because it reduces the need to page through the data. I think the design might still be a little better if the measurements were numbered to match that order. If I were undertaking an activity where I was tracking something with the history I would want it to show that my first measurement was #1 and my tenth as #10. With the current design the measurement history is effectively renumbered with every measurement.