Feature request: remove redundant "Workout" block for completed planned workouts

New to really using intervals.icu — thanks so much, it’s great.

I had a look through the forums and user settings but couldn’t find an existing request for this, so posting here.

The ask: For completed planned workouts, remove the “Workout / [title]” box shown below the activity summary — it just repeats information that’s already visible above it. And make the planned workout visible by clicking the compliance score.

Problem

When a planned workout is completed, the summary view shows the workout title (“55m Easy”) and compliance score (120%) at the top. Directly below that, there’s a separate “Workout / 55m Easy” box that repeats the same info again. This takes up extra screen real estate without adding anything new. The alternative ‘chart’ which removes the workout title text is also duplicative.

Proposed solution

Have option to remove the “Workout” box, and allow clicking the compliance score to open the full planned workout details — so nothing would be lost, it’s just no longer duplicated on the main summary screen.

See attached diagram for a visual walkthrough of the problem and proposed fix.

No, it’s only ‘repeating’ info if you want the workout title to be the same as the activity name. I’m not using it like that, so I don’t want it to be removed. For me the workout name is a more ‘general’ thing while the activity name has more detail on location and also shows tags.

Just play with these three checkboxes to see what you like best.

Ah yes the request was for an option to do this not to remove it entirely.

I’ve played around with the all the settings suggested but it definitely can’t do what I’d like.

I don’t want to remove ‘name’ because all of my past workouts have names including paces for individual splits, which I want to keep at that level for quick reference.

I don’t want to include the ‘workout’ toggle because that image duplicates (assuming I did the session as planned)

And I don’t want to remove charts

So the solution I’ve proposed would be preferred for my use case