Updated formatting of features in readme

[istranic]

🚀 🚀 Pull Request

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project and the Contributing document
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have kept the coverage-rate up
• I have performed a self-review of my own code and resolved any problems
• I have checked to ensure there aren't any other open Pull Requests for the same change
• I have described and made corresponding changes to the relevant documentation
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

Changes

[davidbuniat]

agree with the problem, but solution uses the space sub-optimally

• instead of using ### Storage Agnostic maybe give a try just Storage Agnostic or #### ...
• Since you have single bullet point then no longer need using bullet point under section, maybe instead you can set the bullet to the * Storage Agnostic

[davidbuniat]

also maybe worth leaving the feature text after the visualization, it would give discount on the full blown text content to be shown. (unless there is no way to shorten the text or the list of features)

[istranic]

agree with the problem, but solution uses the space sub-optimally

• instead of using ### Storage Agnostic maybe give a try just Storage Agnostic or #### ...
• Since you have single bullet point then no longer need using bullet point under section, maybe instead you can set the bullet to the * Storage Agnostic

@davidbuniat I tried both. #### is too small. It looks ok, but when you skim, the features just don't pop out. The single-bullet also has the same problem. That's how it was in the old readme, and the feature does not stand out enough when it's immediately followed by text.

Do you think the formatting in the old readme is an issues at all? Maybe I'm trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

[istranic]

also maybe worth leaving the feature text after the visualization, it would give discount on the full blown text content to be shown. (unless there is no way to shorten the text or the list of features)

@davidbuniat I don't love this, but am down to try. @mikayelh what do you think?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1544 (4696b3f) into main (2893b40) will increase coverage by 0.42%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1544      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.75%   92.17%   +0.42%     
==========================================
  Files         193      193              
  Lines       16879    17135     +256     
==========================================
+ Hits        15487    15795     +308     
+ Misses       1392     1340      -52     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	92.17% <ø> (+0.42%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
hub/integrations/tests/test_pytorch_dataloader.py	95.69% <0.00%> (-1.98%)	⬇️
hub/integrations/pytorch/dataset.py	91.37% <0.00%> (-1.18%)	⬇️
conftest.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/cli/commands.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/api/tests/test_json.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/api/tests/test_text.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/tests/cache_fixtures.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/api/tests/test_events.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/api/tests/test_pickle.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
hub/core/storage/provider.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
... and 51 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2893b40...4696b3f. Read the comment docs.