Alright, so I found myself needing to make a number chart, specifically one that covered numbers from 100 all the way to 200. It sounds simple, and it mostly is, but these things still take a bit of doing if you want them neat.
Getting Started
First thing, I figured I’d just sketch it out. But then I thought, no, if I’m gonna do it, I might as well make it look decent, something I can print or look at without my eyes hurting. My handwriting isn’t going to win any awards, especially not for a hundred tiny boxes of numbers.
So, I booted up the old computer. My go-to for this kind of thing is usually just a basic spreadsheet program. Nothing fancy, you know? It’s got cells, it can do rows, it can do columns. Perfect for a grid of numbers.
The Actual Making Of It
I opened a new sheet. First cell, top left, I typed in 100. Then, in the cell next to it, 101, and then 102. I wanted a pretty standard layout, like those 1-100 charts you see, usually ten numbers across. So, I aimed for that. My first row was going to be 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109.
Once I had that first row, it got a bit easier. I could have just typed them all out, but where’s the fun in that? Or rather, where’s the efficiency? I just went to the cell under 100, which would be 110. And under 101 would be 111, and so on. Spreadsheets are good for this. You can often just drag down a pattern.
So I filled out the grid:
- 100 to 109
- 110 to 119
- 120 to 129
- 130 to 139
- 140 to 149
- 150 to 159
- 160 to 169
- 170 to 179
- 180 to 189
- 190 to 199
That gave me a nice, clean block of one hundred numbers, from 100 to 199. Ten rows, ten columns. Looked pretty good. But the goal was a “100 to 200” chart. So, I still had the number 200 to deal with.
The Awkward 200
This is where it gets a tiny bit less neat. A perfect square or rectangle of numbers is always satisfying. But adding just one more number, 200, kind of breaks the pattern. I thought about how to place it. Should it start a new row all by itself? Like, 200, and then blank cells? Or should I have made the columns wider to fit more numbers, or fewer columns? Nah, I stuck with the ten-column layout because it’s familiar.
So, after the row ending in 199, I just went to the next line, first cell, and typed in 200. There it was. A full grid from 100-199, and then 200 sitting there beneath it. Not the most elegant solution for that last number, but it was clear and it got all the numbers on the page.
Finishing Touches (Or Lack Thereof)
I didn’t go overboard with formatting. Made sure the font was something plain and easy to read. Adjusted the column widths and row heights a bit so the numbers weren’t too cramped and the cells were roughly square. I thought about adding colors, like shading every other row, or highlighting multiples of 5 or 10. But then I figured, no, the request was simple, the chart should be simple. Sometimes less is more, right?
So, I just left it as black text on a white background. Printed out a copy. It looked fine. Clear, did the job. All numbers from 100 to 200 accounted for. It wasn’t rocket science, just a bit of methodical work. And that was that, my number chart from 100 to 200 was done. Another small task ticked off the list.
