jemissik
commented
1 year ago I think it will be doable to add some basic options for this. I think that making something really flexible and nice (like what people are used to with GIS software) would probably require more time than I have to spend on it. But allowing users to specify some basic options in the labels file (i.e., the first option in your list) wouldn't require too much time.
Or, something similar to the 3rd option– I could change the Labels tab to allow users to upload multiple labels files (like how the Shapefiles are handled), and include the options in the GUI to specify font color, size, weight, for each file (also similar to the way formatting options for each Shapefiles are specified).
Which way do you think would be the most user-friendly?
There is interest in more formatting options for the labels. One specific request is for different formatting for rivers vs cities/towns. This is the kind of thing people are used to flexibly customizing in GIS software, so we should think of an efficient approach, and if possible take advantage of GIS labeling practices people are already using. Here are some possibilities:
Allow more formatting columns in the labels file (color, size, bold, italics) or a column for CSS format descriptions.
Integrate some kind of standard labeling scheme (see the "Text Symbol Style" gallery in this tutorial. This way you could have a column in the labels file indicating the type of feature (major road, park, waterbody, etc.) which would be used to apply a commonly-used label formatting for the type of feature. We could ask people using ESRI if they have solutions they like already.
Implement something in the ECODATA GUI Labels tab, similar to how custom colors can be managed in the Tracks visualization options.