Hi Olivier,
first: I like the new mockup, more comments below
Am 27.03.2014 12:41, schrieb Olivier Dalang:
Hi !
*Bernhard Ströbl :*
but if different symbologies why not having different labels or
different diagrams. This would become too complicated, I am afraid.
Good point...
I'm not sure if would be a good idea to have the symbology as a tag
anyways, since every layer will necessarily have one, and it's a bit
more than just an optional addition to a layer, like the other tags are.
The only thing I'd like about having the symbology as a tag, is that it
would be easy to copy styles from one layer to another. But maybe, the
current copy/paste style is enough, especially since it's not that
frequent to copy symbologies from one layer to another.
I would not say that ... besides copying labels or diagrams might be
even more seldom. In order to be consistent I would favour symbology as
a tag, too. Why do I have to use a context menu to copy the style while
I can make a simple drag and drop for the diagram?
Bernhard Ströbl :
Or better gray them out to be consistent with the rest (grayed out =
not visible) but keep their check state. Layers could even be grayed
out because they have no feature in the current map extent. So a
grey layer name would indicate that you cannot see this layer in the
current map. Possible reasons are:
1) layer is not set visible
2) scale thresholds are not matching current map scale
3) no features in current map extent
Ok for 1&2, but I find 3 is an overkill. Not seeing the content because
of looking somewhere else doesn't mean the data is hidden. It may make
the whole graying out of invisible layers thing less readable.
Hm, difficult, I could argue "looking with a different scale does not
mean the data is hidden". The map canvas has a current scale and a
current view port. Why should only the scale qualify for graying out and
not the viewport?
But another reason to gray out would be "the data source is unavailable".
good addition
Bernhard
I updated the mockup, with the aligned tags. I find it more clear and it
may solve the concern of the width for small screens : it would be
possible to completely fold the tags part (and maybe even the sources
part), so to display the legend as it is now.
About the opacity/blending mode, I think the most consistent UI
implementation would be to use tags as well : any layer with no (or
disabled) blending tag has 100% + normal (or "transfer" for groups).
Changing those would require a blending tag.
I'll see if I manage to open a wiki page so once we've got an agreement
on the mockup we can keep reference to it.
Best,
Olivier
Images intégrées 1
__________ Information from ESET Security, version of virus signature database
9601 (20140327) __________
The message was checked by ESET Security.
part000.txt - is OK
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
