What goes wrong
The card naming the loaded track is set to fill its column, so on a wide window spare bar becomes spare card with the same text sitting in it: 422px at 1600, 460 at 1920, and wider still beyond that, for a title and one line of metadata that never needed the room.
What it should do
Size to its content and stop. A long title clips with an ellipsis at the ceiling rather than dragging the card out to meet it, and the card looks the same on a 1920 screen as on a 2560 one.
Constraint worth stating
A percentage cap does not do it: max-width: 100% means "as wide as the bar allows", which is the behaviour being complained about. It needs a real ceiling, and the number to pick is what the meta line needs at its longest, duration through to the extracted date, which is around 460px.
Stopping it stretching leaves that space somewhere else, between the card and the controls on the right. That is a separate decision: breathing room, or the actions move left to close it.
What goes wrong
The card naming the loaded track is set to fill its column, so on a wide window spare bar becomes spare card with the same text sitting in it: 422px at 1600, 460 at 1920, and wider still beyond that, for a title and one line of metadata that never needed the room.
What it should do
Size to its content and stop. A long title clips with an ellipsis at the ceiling rather than dragging the card out to meet it, and the card looks the same on a 1920 screen as on a 2560 one.
Constraint worth stating
A percentage cap does not do it:
max-width: 100%means "as wide as the bar allows", which is the behaviour being complained about. It needs a real ceiling, and the number to pick is what the meta line needs at its longest, duration through to the extracted date, which is around 460px.Stopping it stretching leaves that space somewhere else, between the card and the controls on the right. That is a separate decision: breathing room, or the actions move left to close it.